The Belgravia Dispatch: Self-Parody Watch

September 16, 2007

Self-Parody Watch

SEN. INHOFE: I was really shocked when I saw the article in the paper by Mike O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack in the New York Times, on the 30th of July, but these are two journalists, fine people and all that, with the Brookings Institute, but they've been very critical. They came back and wrote the article, A War We Just Might Win. I was in shock to see that. Katie Couric, has certainly been no friend of the president's or this effort, came back from actually going over visiting -- and I'm going to get this into the record.
Fallujah was one of the deadliest cities in this country, with terrible fighting. But what happened is al Qaeda came in; the tribal leaders realized they did not want to live under a brutal al Qaeda regime, so they enlisted the help of the U.S. soldiers.

Suddenly, these former enemies had a common enemy, worked together, and now Fallujah is relatively calm. Reconstruction efforts are under way. And it is really being considered a crowning achievement.

And I can't help but think -- I would suggest that both Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd go over there, and they may experience the same type of conversion.

Now, when the statement that was made, trying to draw a relationship, or trying not to draw a relationship between Iraq and 9/11, I think it's important to bring out the fact that there were very major terrorist training camps in Iraq in places like (inaudible) Ramadi, Samarra, Salmanpak. In Salmanpak, it was a training camp where they actually had a fuselage of a 707, training terrorists how to hijack airplanes.

There's no evidence that 9/11 -- those who performed that duty on 9/11 were trained there. But nonetheless, these were terrorist training camps.

Are there any left in Iraq now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: There are certainly areas in which al Qaeda still has local sway, if you will. But one of the big efforts during the surge has in fact been to wrest control from them of many of the areas that were formerly sanctuaries, including also Ramadi, Baqouba, Arab Jabour, a number of other neighborhoods in Baghdad and so forth.

Inhofe's just a non-entity, of course, but a better man might have provided him more context in the response, rather than play charade that the 'former sanctuaries' had any linkage to 9/11 or (pre-Iraq invasion) al-Qaeda activity of any kind. Sad.

Posted by Gregory at September 16, 2007 12:32 PM

Comments

Despite my advanced age, I've gone back to school and was discussing this topic with a professor who has spent years studying the Middle East.

The good prof observed that she was suprised that O'Hanlon and Pollack had been characterized as opponents of the Bush position (by the Bush Admin), and are now touted as in favor of the Bush program. She thought they had always been in the Bush camp. (She didn't call them shills...)

She observed that they had travelled with Andrew Cordesman who seemed much less positive in his analysis (and in subsequent interviews) -- even though they all saw the same things.

Cordesman's recent article in Foreign Affairs seemed upbeat, but all of the details were very negative. She suggested that it was because Cordesman (who she typically diagreed with, but admired for his honesty and thoroughness) may have felt that he couldn't freely disagree with his long-time allies in Washington, but had to tell the truth as he saw it...

If you listen to his recent discussions on NPR, you see somethng quite different than what O'H and Pol present.

Posted by: Walt Sherrill at September 16, 2007 11:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

From the standpoint of President Bush's strongest supporters, Pollack and O'Hanlon really are critics of the administration. This is because they have in the past criticized the administration.

In the same way John McCain will always be regard with suspicion no matter how closely he cleaves to the President on Iraq. He has taken a different path on other subjects in the past, and is thus a critic of the President -- this, from the standpoint of people who regard the words "critic" and "enemy" as synonymous. Sen. Lieberman actually ran against the President, as Gore's running mate in 2000. This makes him a critic also.

Of course people who are not among President Bush's strongest supporters view things differently, but the strong belief among those who work for and admire the President that anyone who has not always maintained message discipline is fundamentally unreliable has most likely played its part in the identification of people who support administration policy in general while disagreeing on some of the details as "critics."

Posted by: Zathras at September 17, 2007 11:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras,

Sadly, if your analysis is correct, Greenspan will be termed a critic (or enemy, or whatever), because his book was a bit candid about the Iraq "Oil" war.

I say sadly, because I was greatly impressed by the verbal kung fu I saw by Greenspan, explaining how our invading Iraq to secure oil, was really the same thing as invading Iraq because of WMD -- because we needed to squelch the WMDs lest they stop our oil!

I was impressed -- its not only clever, but I think it is a very cogent and plausible line of reasoning. Keeping the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf operating at full oil tempo is indeed an important US security interest, and the primary reason we invented CENTCOM those many years ago.

Posted by: Ted Iowa at September 18, 2007 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'm from Oklahoma. Inhofe's always been an embarrassment. He's just an idiot. I just wanted to point that out, since I think it can't be said too often that Inhofe is an idiot.

Posted by: LL at September 19, 2007 02:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« Awesome Humor on the Hill! \| Main \| In-House Note » September 16, 2007 Self-Parody Watch SEN. INHOFE: I was really shocked when I saw the article in the paper by Mike O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack in the New York Times, on the 30th of July, but these are two journalists, fine people and all that, with the Brookings Institute, but they've been very critical. They came back and wrote the article, A War We Just Might Win. I was in shock to see that. Katie Couric, has certainly been no friend of the president's or this effort, came back from actually going over visiting -- and I'm going to get this into the record. Fallujah was one of the deadliest cities in this country, with terrible fighting. But what happened is al Qaeda came in; the tribal leaders realized they did not want to live under a brutal al Qaeda regime, so they enlisted the help of the U.S. soldiers. Suddenly, these former enemies had a common enemy, worked together, and now Fallujah is relatively calm. Reconstruction efforts are under way. And it is really being considered a crowning achievement. And I can't help but think -- I would suggest that both Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd go over there, and they may experience the same type of conversion. Now, when the statement that was made, trying to draw a relationship, or trying not to draw a relationship between Iraq and 9/11, I think it's important to bring out the fact that there were very major terrorist training camps in Iraq in places like (inaudible) Ramadi, Samarra, Salmanpak. In Salmanpak, it was a training camp where they actually had a fuselage of a 707, training terrorists how to hijack airplanes. There's no evidence that 9/11 -- those who performed that duty on 9/11 were trained there. But nonetheless, these were terrorist training camps. Are there any left in Iraq now? GEN. PETRAEUS: There are certainly areas in which al Qaeda still has local sway, if you will. But one of the big efforts during the surge has in fact been to wrest control from them of many of the areas that were formerly sanctuaries, including also Ramadi, Baqouba, Arab Jabour, a number of other neighborhoods in Baghdad and so forth. Inhofe's just a non-entity, of course, but a better man might have provided him more context in the response, rather than play charade that the 'former sanctuaries' had any linkage to 9/11 or (pre-Iraq invasion) al-Qaeda activity of any kind. Sad. Posted by Gregory at September 16, 2007 12:32 PM Comments Despite my advanced age, I've gone back to school and was discussing this topic with a professor who has spent years studying the Middle East. The good prof observed that she was suprised that O'Hanlon and Pollack had been characterized as opponents of the Bush position (by the Bush Admin), and are now touted as in favor of the Bush program. She thought they had always been in the Bush camp. (She didn't call them shills...) She observed that they had travelled with Andrew Cordesman who seemed much less positive in his analysis (and in subsequent interviews) -- even though they all saw the same things. Cordesman's recent article in Foreign Affairs seemed upbeat, but all of the details were very negative. She suggested that it was because Cordesman (who she typically diagreed with, but admired for his honesty and thoroughness) may have felt that he couldn't freely disagree with his long-time allies in Washington, but had to tell the truth as he saw it... If you listen to his recent discussions on NPR, you see somethng quite different than what O'H and Pol present. Posted by: Walt Sherrill at September 16, 2007 11:48 PM \| Permalink to this comment From the standpoint of President Bush's strongest supporters, Pollack and O'Hanlon really are critics of the administration. This is because they have in the past criticized the administration. In the same way John McCain will always be regard with suspicion no matter how closely he cleaves to the President on Iraq. He has taken a different path on other subjects in the past, and is thus a critic of the President -- this, from the standpoint of people who regard the words "critic" and "enemy" as synonymous. Sen. Lieberman actually ran against the President, as Gore's running mate in 2000. This makes him a critic also. Of course people who are not among President Bush's strongest supporters view things differently, but the strong belief among those who work for and admire the President that anyone who has not always maintained message discipline is fundamentally unreliable has most likely played its part in the identification of people who support administration policy in general while disagreeing on some of the details as "critics." Posted by: Zathras at September 17, 2007 11:24 PM \| Permalink to this comment Zathras, Sadly, if your analysis is correct, Greenspan will be termed a critic (or enemy, or whatever), because his book was a bit candid about the Iraq "Oil" war. I say sadly, because I was greatly impressed by the verbal kung fu I saw by Greenspan, explaining how our invading Iraq to secure oil, was really the same thing as invading Iraq because of WMD -- because we needed to squelch the WMDs lest they stop our oil! I was impressed -- its not only clever, but I think it is a very cogent and plausible line of reasoning. Keeping the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf operating at full oil tempo is indeed an important US security interest, and the primary reason we invented CENTCOM those many years ago. Posted by: Ted Iowa at September 18, 2007 12:52 AM \| Permalink to this comment I'm from Oklahoma. Inhofe's always been an embarrassment. He's just an idiot. I just wanted to point that out, since I think it can't be said too often that Inhofe is an idiot. Posted by: LL at September 19, 2007 02:09 AM \| Permalink to this comment Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? YesNo Comments:		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt Recent Entries Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again... Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That" Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Columnists Anne Applebaum Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Archives September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch