Torture apologist and former Bush speech writer Marc Thiessen takes to his perch at the Washington Post Editorial page to scold all the Republicans in the current goat rodeo that is their nomination process about their lack of hawkishness.
He is unhappy that the candidates from the “Manly men making war” party are not speaking out in support of our action in Libya and worse that they seem to be flirting with the position of the majority of the American people, namely getting the hell out of Dodge in Afghanistan.
It has to be really hard for someone like Thiessen seeing his party wake up from a decade of “No cutting and running” and “you are either with us or against us” sloganeering. After all this is a man that thinks that it is just fine that we take people merely accused of a crime, terrorism, and then torture them to get supposed intelligence. He has made a career defending the “he-men” in the Republican Party and now they are all going soft on him.
You’ll just have to imagine tears running down my face at poor old Marc’s fate, because you sure as hell will never see me crying over him in reality.
He makes all the same points that we’ve heard ad nauseam about Afghanistan. That the Taliban were there and will come back if we leave; that we have to stay win (though, of course, he give not definition of what winning would or could look like) and all the rest.
He takes a good swipe a Rep. Ron Paul for failing to know that Iran sits in between Afghanistan and Iraq, but really that is just a fit of pique not a substantive critic. Thiessen is showing what a lot of Republicans are feeling, a massive dissatisfaction with the 7 dwarves (soon to be 8 when Jon Huntsman announces, call him…. Hopeless, I guess).
Here is a little sample of this trying-to-be-tough-but-coming-off- whinny column:
Not one candidate stepped forward to argue for prosecuting the Afghan war to a successful conclusion. Not Michele Bachmann, who had previously criticized Obama for failing to speak of “victory” when announcing his Afghan surge. Not even Tim Pawlenty, who has previously called for “strategic patience” in Afghanistan and argued, “If we are serious about what this means about terrorism . . . and our national security interests, then we need to be serious about seeing it through . . . .” (To his credit, Pawlenty did defend U.S. missile strikes in Yemen and the liberation of Iraq, which he called “one of the shining examples of success in the Middle East”).
Although he was not at the debate, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman — who is preparing to announce his candidacy next week — argued in a CNN interview Sunday for a faster timetable for pulling U.S. troops from Afghanistan than the one President Obama has in mind: “When you look at Afghanistan, can we hang out until 2014 and beyond? You can, if you’re willing to pay another quarter of a trillion dollars to do so . . . . If it isn’t in our direct national security interest and if there isn’t a logical exit strategy and if we don’t know what the cost is going to be in terms of money and human lives, then I think you have to say it’s probably time we reevaluate this. My hunch is the American people want to be out of there as quickly as we can get it done.”
(continued….)
See, the Republicans running for president get that there is a lot of war fatigue among the American people, and while there is less of it in the Republican base it is growing there as well. They understand that there is just no way to square the circle of the cost of our military adventurism at a time they are calling for massive cuts in entitlements. The old formula is guns and butter; well the American people have had all the guns they can stand for a while and are not taking kindly to the idea that there will be no more butter.
The other problem for Thiessen is that while he can hold six impossible things in his head at once, not everyone can or will. Even for the most die hard war monger, there is no good outcome available in Afghanistan. We’ve seen this movie in the 1970’s in Vietnam and the remake in a new location does not fix the ending.
Right now we have a huge number of troops in the field there. We can clear areas but we are unable to blanket the entire nation and so we can’t consolidate our hold. We have an ostensible ally in President Karzai, but he is corrupt and not loved by his people. Worse he does not control the country either; he is more the President of Kabul than President of Afghanistan in fact.
Our other ally, Pakistan, is, at best, playing a double game in supporting us and the Taliban through its intelligence service the ISI. They have no intention of leaving behind the level of influence they had in a nation on their boarder. They know that sooner or later the US will be leaving and that they will get to be the big boys on the block when we do. I actually understand their need to have their hands in the Afghan government. If they do not then Iran, for all that it is Shi’ite and not Sunni Muslim.
All this combined with our abject failure to focus on the first war we started when we might have been able to do something approaching a success leaves the United State in a no-win situation and any thinking person has got to know that it is time to call a cab and find the exit.
Which is the problem for Marc Thiessen. You see, he is less of thinking person than a random word generator hooked into to a news feed, a policy data base from the Heritage Foundation and Dick Cheney’s hind brain. Something fact comes in and then the gears go around and around and out comes this kind of standard Republican, Conservative, and Teahadist rhetoric. Facts about the cost of the wars or the lack of a viable successful conclusion do not matter to someone who worked in the White House that proudly proclaimed that it was not part of the reality based community.
There has to be an kind of existential loneliness to being Marc Thiessen. He has put a lot of effort and investing his credibility (such as it is) in these memes of war and terror and now as the nation is moving away from those ideas, he is being left behind by his party. The good news is that I kind of doubt that the Republican field will stay this reasonable about such things. They are probably going to come back the “he-man” style of foreign policy; after all they don’t have a lot of original ideas either.
The floor is yours.




29 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Maybe he is about to stick his toe in the water for the race…another manly man who loves a war for sending the sons/daughters of other folks into harm’s way…loves that killing. If we need to be at war, bring back the equal opportunity draft.
What more is there to say? I think that you have covered it.
OT: Weiner to step down…
Cheney’s brain…very hard to leave that one alone.;) How about assumes a fact not in evidence?
I do wonder when confronted by the absolute impossability of their ideas coming to fruition, if the people who think like Thiessen ever acknowledge that “somthing was a bad concept” or “that was a bad idea,” even privately.
Is the dogma so complete there is no reflection?
Or is it that the bad ideas have to die with the people?
Well the idea of cognitive dissonance is that you will try to avoid the pain of holding conflicting impossible ideas in your head by rationalization. When it fails it is incredibly psychologically painful.
Maybe there is some of that kind of pain in Thiessen’s future?
True dat, there wasn’t anyone on that stage that I would identify as a neo-con. They pretty much had the other factions covered – Paul for the libertarians, Bachmann for the Teabaggers, Santorum for the forced-birthers, Romney for the aristocrats. They also didn’t have a neo-Confederate bigot candidate. Two major factions without out a candidate.
Now Huntsman is going to enter – who does he represent? What’s his power base? Is he just going to be the “Romney backup”?
Where would you put Newt, other than has-been?
His campaign says that they are going to run on two points, debt (dumbass) and ending the war in Afghanistan. So nothing for Thiessen or the other Neo-Con’s there.
Leaves a bigger space for Gov. Perry, maybe.
I would put Newt as “hypocritical, philandering grifter”, which is a major category of Republican, but does not represent a coalition faction.
Pawlenty I would put as “pathetic loser” – again, not a faction.
Cain is just “token”. Every Republican is not a bigot, it’s just that the Southern Strategy created a warm, fuzzy home for the bulk of the nations bigots. There really isn’t a faction for the non-bigots, but there are some.
Although, credit where credit is due, they had a black man and a woman on the stage. That’s progress, of a sort.
And I suppose I should have added “virulent homophobes” to Santorum’s faction.
Recycle bin?
“Major category ;)” sounds like a self-help group.
Yep…recycle to something else, I guess.;)
Considering what Obama’s been doing since taking office, are we really so sure the country has woken up yet?
Seems more like the country has gotten tired of hearing about it, so has stopped asking questions about it.
Now, candidates know not to talk about it, but once they’re in office – like Obama – they start ordering bombings and torturing all the same.
(Oh, wait. Candidate Obama did talk about it. Never mind.)
Is Perry a neo-con? Something I read yesterday painted him as another Bush, I don’t know if that extends to foreign policy.
Time is marching on. Iowa is February 6. People can’t sit on the sidelines much longer. Anyone running for the GOP nomination needs to get their name out there and start raising boatloads of cash, opening campaign offices in the early states, hiring staff (and retaining them, sorry Newt). Where is Perry on that time line?
I didn’t watch that Pedigree Dog Show, but from what I am seeing and hearing it was a total waste of time. It seems they didn’t really debate each other or show their differences on issues. Oh well, look how long it took them to decide to run!
Actually I think I have not heard much foreign policy stuff from Perry. Not part of his job at all. But our paper had a piece yesterday quoting his view of how much time he thinks he has left to make a decision, as he is talking to his people/friends, including his wife. Mostly he has staked out the very fundy, budget cut, tough on immigration stuff for his audience.
With the exception of Paul, they really don’t disagree with each other on issues, only on emphasis.
As someone pointed out, this very early debate is not for us, but for the big money donors, to help them pick a vehicle to enhance their wealth. So for each of the candidates it was more a matter of not losing, rather than winning, the non-debate debate.
Breaking on TMZ: Weiner to resign today.
Then Pawlenty would have been wise to take Romney down a notch.
He didn’t.
Bachmann’s campaign must have been seeing nothing but dollar signs through the whole thing.
Paul has nothing to lose or gain at this point. If he’s still trying to incluence anything, he needs to recognize that he’s no longer doing it.
I wish him well; he’s about to be a dad. He has alot at stake.
OT:
What is going on in Nebraska with the Nuclear Plant?
http://www.businessinsider.com/faa-closes-airspace-over-flooded-nebraska-nuclear-power-plant-2011-6
I thought Gov. GoodHair’s “foreign policy” was having Tejas secede from the USA. That would make Tejas a “foreign” nation, wouldn’t it?
IS there any difference on the T-GOPer Kabuki show called “Republican POTUS campaign”?? If so, what? how?
They’re all lackeys to the corporations at the end of the day. IMO, Obama’ll “win” in 2012, no questions asked, bc he does what he’s told apparently with relish. But should Obama “lose,” whoever gets put “in charge” will function exactly as Obama has. What’s the difference?
Marc loves a pile of dead Muslims to stand on to make him look big and bad.
Of course the little people should handle the actual killing and stacking.
I’m not surprised the Washington Post is providing a “concern” trolling platform for MarcThiessen.Com. Looks like he’s still living large down the street from the Star Chamber proceedings (RawStory.Com, June 15, 2011) rather than hanging out with Yoo and pedalling wares via Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Maybe Thiessen plans to do podcasts on the shadow Internet the US is building with tax payer dollar$ in the Middle East (RT.Com, June 15, 2011)?
Meanwhile, nothing stopping folks from voicing their opinion with “Mr. President, Wall Street’s Dollars Can’t Vote” open letter (RootsAction.Org; great graphic).
As long as it’s equal that would include the Bush and Obama daughters, Chenys too.
Mr. Thiessen, probably, has never met a tautology he didn’t like, like we must stay in Afghanistan in order to defeat those who do not want us in Afghanistan.
And/or, Mr. Thiessen may not be aware that 200 years of Crusades still didn’t manage to tame or, better yet, wipe out the Muslim population – but nobody can say it wasn’t tried – 200 years worth.