The Tiresome Mr. Rich
He’s back again, with yet another rewrite of the endless column, complete with “Mission Accomplished”, assertions that somehow someone other than he is trying to tie Iraq to 9/11, and bold statements that will, like his other bold statements, evaporate in the light of events. Yes, it could only be the loathsome Frank Rich.
In his latest column, incoherently named “The Vietnamization of Bush’s Vacation” (???!!!???), Rich assures us once again that Iraq is lost, because Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden say so, and because the vapid Cindy Sheehan has somehow changed the course of the war with her MoveOn.org sponsored Passion Play. Rich’s desire for failure in Iraq is palpable:
We have long since lost count of all the historic turning points and fast-evaporating victories hyped by this president. The toppling of Saddam’s statue, “Mission Accomplished,” the transfer of sovereignty and the purple fingers all blur into a hallucinatory loop of delusion. One such red-letter day, some may dimly recall, was the adoption of the previous, interim constitution in March 2004, also proclaimed a “historic milestone” by Mr. Bush.
I ask you all, are these not victories? The toppling of Saddam’s statue, the transfer of sovereignty, the purple fingers of Iraqis voting in free elections? Are these, Mr. Rich, defeats?
One sure way we could have avoided all this would have been to leave Saddam in power. We’d be no closer to getting bin Laden, because one has nothing to do with the other, but we would still have the Butcher of Baghdad in place, no doubt in a sanction-free Iraq by now, rebuilding his WMD programs (again, don’t confuse lack of stockpiles, however wrong the intelligence, with lack of desire), killing innocent Iraqis, raping women in front of their husbands, torturing multitudes, giving payouts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and filling mass graves.
Or we could have a struggling democracy, moving fitfully, but surely, forward, and an insurgency that is killing far too many Americans and Iraqis but holds no strategically significant areas and has the support only of deposed Baathists. I know what set of circumstances I prefer.
Fret not, though because Frank has a solution:
Among Washington’s Democrats, the only one with a clue seems to be Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin senator who this month proposed setting a “target date” (as opposed to a deadline) for getting out. Mr. Feingold also made the crucial observation that “the president has presented us with a false choice”: either “stay the course” or “cut and run.” That false choice, in which Mr. Bush pretends that the only alternative to his reckless conduct of the war is Ms. Sheehan’s equally apocalyptic retreat, is used to snuff out any legitimate debate. There are in fact plenty of other choices echoing about, from variations on Mr. Feingold’s timetable theme to buying off the Sunni insurgents.
Buying off the insurgents? Who’s living in fantasyland now? Is Rich so stupid as to thank that is a viable option? Does he believe that the foreign-born terrorists who serve the cause of jihad can be bought off?
How seriously should we take Rich’s doomsday scenario? Here’s an indication: in the middle of PlameGate, when the headlines were screaming about Karl Rove with the same frequency as Cindy Sheehan currently, Rich had this to say:
Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there’s only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it’s essential to protect the king.
So it was only natural that Rich celebrated his prescience when Rove, in fact, did resign – oh, wait, he didn’t, now, did he? Well, he may yet, and Iraq may yet be lost, but neither has come to pass thus far, despite the most fervent wishes of Mr. Rich.
Of course, Mark. Buying off the “insurgents” — it’s brilliant!
It worked fantastically in North Korea, until GWB said some rude things and caused NoKo to retroactively have restarted their nuclear weapons program despite the bribes.
And it worked wonderfully when we set up the “Oil-for-Food” program, deliberately allowing Saddam Hussein to siphon off some of the money, in hopes of getting him to play nice with the inspectors. Again, until GWB messed it all up by arbitrarily pulling out the inspectors and unilaterally invading a peaceful sovereign nation.
Dare I mention Yassir Arafat, who took the influx of foreign capital intended to help build an economically stable Palestinian state and instead used it to launch a new wave of terror against the Israelis?
Rudyard Kipling had a few thoughts on this matter…
Nice…I wasn’t familiar with that litlle bit of verse, but I suspect I’ll have occasion to refer to it again…
As the lone Frank Rich enthusiast in this crowd, I must respectfully disagree:
1) Say what you will about Rich’s viewpoint, I don’t think he is a “loathsome” person. As far as I know, he has never been accused of pederasty, moral turpitude, or defaming Mom or Apple Pie.
2) George Bush and Dick Cheney have repeatedly linked Saddam to Al Qaeda (see the 2003 State of the Union, Cheney on Meet the Press, etc.). According to the 9/11 Commission (among many other sources), this linkage was occasional and inconsequential. While their amplification of this limited relationship is incorrect, did they also incorrectly link Saddam with the 9/11 event itself? Yes, but implicitly: for example, they continue to portray the Iraqi invasion as part of the war on terror (Bush, as recently as this week). Saddam can rightly be included in the same class as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot – but terror against Americans is not among his sins. Also, Bush’s speeches repeatedly alternate remarks about 9/11 to justifications of the war in Iraq. While he has not, to my knowledge, made the explicit connection between Saddam and 9/11 (because there is no connection), he posits the dots and lets the listener connect them. Evidently he was successful in doing this, as in 2003 and 2004 a significant number of Americans polled believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
3) Rich did not say that “Iraq is lost because Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden say so.” Rather, he said that Hagel (and Kissinger) “stepped up to fill (the) vacuum” of “an alternative to either Mr. Bush’s policy or Ms. Sheehan’s plea for an immediate withdrawal.” Rich has made the argument that Iraq is lost in many previous columns – since you consider him to be “tiresome,” presumably you are grateful that he did not repeat this argument.
4) Rich’s remarks about Cindy Sheehan are similarly distorted. Rich did not write that “Iraq is lost … because the vapid Cindy Sheehan has somehow changed the course of the war.” Rather, he wrote “in the wake of Ms. Sheehan’s protest, the facts on the ground in America have changed almost everywhere.” Well, things have changed: since she because a household name last month, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped precipitously (from the low 40’s to the mid-30’s – or 15-20% of his already meager public support), and many more Americans now oppose the war. This is similar to when Walter Cronkite famously challenged the VietNam war in 1967, and LBJ made a remark to the effect that if he lost Cronkite, the war is lost. The “facts on the ground” have changed because the tipping point has come and gone, and Cindy Sheehan is the proximate cause of this.
5) Rich’s point in the first italicized paragraph is that we take one step forward and then two steps backwards. The toppling of Saddam’s statue was great, until the inept post-invasion occupation squandered any goodwill we may have accrued. The transfer of sovereignty was a good thing, as well as the interim constitution, are good first steps – however whether they will ultimately lead to a self-sustaining and viable government are anybody’s guess. The purple fingers? Absolutely a good thing: however, eyewitness reports suggest that many of those who risked their lives to vote are immensely frustrated, because the bickering among different constituencies has yet to lead to a real government or a consensus on how the country will be structured.
No reasonable person could expect an occupation to be problem-free. This may all work out – we don’t know. However, it is too optimistic to describe Iraq as “a struggling democracy, moving fitfully, but surely, forward.” Candidates in the recent election ran anonymously to avoid being assassinated; the deadline for a constitution passed in acrimony; the chances of the current draft version being adopted are questionable; violence continues. None of us know if the end result will be a democracy or a ruinous civil war.
6) True, “one sure way we could have avoided all this would have been to leave Saddam in power.” I originally supported the war, because there are some leaders who are so vile that they ought not to enjoy the protection of sovereignty. I no longer support the war, because the administration’s inept post-invasion handling of Iraq has, in my opinion, created a larger problem than the one it purported to solve. Nobody questions that Saddam was a bad man – the question is whether the good which came from deposing him justifies the enormous cost in lives, money, American prestige, etc. Moreover, I believe that we will ultimately end up in more or less the same place we started. My prediction is that the Iraqis will sooner or later tire of the unending violence and pick another strongman, with the tacit approval of the West. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
7) I have no idea what he meant by “buying off the Sunni insurgents,” so I will concede the point.
I think Rich’s major point – that there is a paucity of ideas from either side on how to end this conflict – is valid. He is correct in stating that there is a middle ground between George Bush and Cindy Sheehan, and the solution to this mess lies in finding the best solution among unpleasant alternatives.
peter, no doubt there is a middle ground between George Bush and Cindy Sheehan – but you give Rich far too much credit. For example, your point 5 – Rich didn’t say one step forward, two back – you did. What Rich DID say is “The toppling of Saddam’s statue, “Mission Accomplished,” the transfer of sovereignty and the purple fingers all blur into a hallucinatory loop of delusion.” A hallucinatory loop of delusion is quite a bit different from what you attribute to him.
Loathsome is in the eye of the beholder; true, there are degrees of loathsomeness. I’ll concede Rich has not credibly been accused of crimes.
Your point two I refuse to concede. True, Cheney has gone further than Bush on this, but when Bush is asked point blank, as he has been, in nationally televised press conferences, whether Saddam was linked to 9/11, he has point blank said there is no evidence to indicate that he was. Saddam’s regime and the wider war on terror has been addressed quite eloquently by Christopher Hitchens, among others, and I couldn’t hope to improve on his words.
Whether Cindy Sheehan has demoralized the country, as you say in so many words, in the manner of Walter Cronkite, we shall see. It’s an odd thing to celebrate, as Rich does.
1) I’ll concede your first point, but barely: there is a difference between “one step forward, two steps back” and “historic turning points” being delusional, but it is one of degrees.
2) I’m glad you agree that he is not criminal — I don’t know much about Frank Rich, except that he used to be their theater critic, but the one time I saw him on television, he seemed to be a pleasant enough guy.
3) Re point two: I may be confusing what Bush has said with what has been said by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others in his administration. I will concede that when challenged, Bush admitted that there is no link between 9-11 and Al Qaeda. However, this linkage has been made implicitly, if not explicitly, on many occasions by others in his administration.
4) Maybe it’s an eye-of-the-beholder thing, but I just don’t see any gleefulness or celebration in Rich’s writing about Iraq. Disgust and anger, yes. I think it is a very rare voice on the left which would express elation about the unravelling of Iraq. There are certainly people on the left with a fifth grade, “I told you so” mentality. I certainly can’t speak for Frank Rich, but as I read his pieces, it seems to me that he views the Iraqi war as tragedy, not comedy.
peter, maybe I would be more inclined to give Rich the benefit of the doubt on the gleefulness thing if he devoted one column to discussing real possibilities of improvement, without reverting to the litany…
On point 3, I know you meant 9/11 and Saddam…
Have a good one…
agreed on both counts –
Re: Peter’s comment on August 28, 2005 @ 7:53 PM:
Bush didn’t “when challenged admit” that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 because he didn’t have to. He simply repeated what he said before we invaded Iraq, that there was no connection. If you have evidence that he or any member of his administration has made that claim, then please supply some links.
Here are the links you asked for:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091703C.shtml
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/168251
Peter-
Re: your links…
Much smoke, no sight of fire.
The first one just says that Bush mentioned 9/11 and Iraq alot, even though he didn’t say they were related. True. Where’s the fire?
The second says that Cheney refused to completely rule out any and all connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda, since of course there was some connection. (Or was the Clinton White House making that up in ’93?) He was right. To answer otherwise would have been dishonest. Where’s the fire?
The third points to Cheney mentioning the Czech report of a meeting in Prague, as a small part of a much longer answer about why the American people might think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. You can read the whole interview here. The Vice President mentioned it not in the context of demonstrating that Iraq was involved, but rather of explaining the surprising poll result that 69% of Americans thought that he was involved. The context makes a huge difference. And he explicitly says that we do not know whether Saddam Hussein was at all involved in 9/11 — and that we do not know whether or not Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Again — no fire.
Three links — each of which explicitly clears the President or Vice President of linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attack.
Three strikes, you’re out.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
I love Rich, but I get a bit tired of the mission accomplished thing too. You can’t let it go though, it’s like the voting for the 87 million thing you guys were so proud of last year.
Fair enough…but did you know he voted for it before he voted against it? Just kidding…
Habbo Retros…
Habbo Retros are slowly attracting more users with each passing day, most people prefer to play Habbo Retros with pets according to a recent google study, further evidence also supports that Habbo Retros have lead to an annual decrease in revenue for s…