Post #14

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 18
Read the transcript to the Friday show:

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews, and welcome to HARDBALL.

With the election just 81 days away, the political battle lines are being drawn on the war in Iraq. Yesterday, a group of 21 former generals and national security advisers sent President Bush a letter calling on the commander-in-chief to reverse his course on Iraq and on Iran. The letter states the administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.

[Yes, repetition is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric – “administration‘s hardline policies have undermined America‘s security and made the country less safe.”]

… Lieutenant General Robert Gard is one of those generals who signed a letter to the president, critical of foreign policy.

It‘s unusual for generals to speak their mind, but you‘re now in civilian clothes and you‘re in mufti and you can say what you want. Was going to Iraq a mistake?

LT. GEN. ROBERT GARD, JR., SENT LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: What are you, Mike Mansfield? How about a little—he‘s the senator famous for short answers. But elaborate, sir.

GARD: We had them contained, we went in, we conducted the mission badly, especially the post-conflict mission. We‘re bogged down, our troops are extended too thin. It takes away our capability to deal with and focus on other problems.

[Exactly. Saddam was a bad man, but we had him boxed-in. Saddam was NOT a threat to us. The cost to us in lives and treasure was NOT worth removing him with an invasion. I repeat: Saddam was NOT a threat to us – invading was a mistake. And we bungled the job.]

MATTHEWS: Is there anything that‘s happened in Iraq since 2003, when we invaded, that we couldn‘t have foreseen?

GARD: I don‘t think so. The problem is that there was an assumption that there would not be an insurgency. We would be greeted with sweets and flowers. There was no preparation for what to do after Baghdad fell.

MATTHEWS: So what pencil nut (ph) came up with that assumption?

GARD: Well, it was an assumption, of course, of our civilian leadership, as stated by the vice president.

MATTHEWS: Do you think it was prejudiced by policy, that they wanted to go in, so they said it will be nice when we get in there? They just wanted us to invade Iraq, period? People like Wolfowitz, Feith, people that—the vice-president‘s office, the vice-president himself, they just wanted to go in for so many reasons that they just thought up—they couldn‘t think of anything that wasn‘t going to be nice about it?

GARD: They were looking for a pretext. They have had long wished for the overthrow of Saddam, regime change in Iraq. Part of a grander plan.

MATTHEWS: And what was the plan? What is their goal? If it wasn‘t the true belief in WMD, and it certainly wasn‘t the true belief in a nuclear threat, what was their ambition in Mesopotamia?

GARD: It was to get in, establish a presence, develop a democracy, which would be contagious and would, in a sense, neutralize other threats in the area, as they became more democratic.

[Yes, the world according to Dick Cheney – and, ultimately, to George W. Bush. And it was plainly laid out in a website – newamericancentury.com , I believe – BEFORE the 2000 election. But who thought those paranoid ramblings would become official policy? I, like the majority of American voters in 2000, did NOT vote for this.]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the maintaining of our military vigilance and strength over there. When we went in, we went in in a lightning strike. We were—Tommy Franks was able to take our forces right to Baghdad relatively quickly.

Was there anything that should have been done then? Given the fact it was a mistake to go in, is there any better way we could have gone in that would have protected our troops. We‘ve lost so many men now and women. We‘ve lost -- 20,000 wounded, many of them amputees now. Is there any way we could have fought this war better?

GARD: Certainly. First, we could have gone in with more troops, so we could have kept order. The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.

[Are you listening, George W.? “The first responsibility in occupying power is to keep order and protect the people within the country.” You failed.]

MATTHEWS: Well, how do you stop Iran from lobbing even the stupidest bomb, the least organized bomb, something of two-thirds of a failure, but it‘s still there, into Tel Aviv tomorrow morning? How do we stop them from doing it?

GARD: Because you accept their offer to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. There was an overture made in May of 2003 that would have addressed every one of the issues that we‘re concerned about. It was a serious offer, afforded to us by the Swiss ambassador. The administration‘s reaction was expressing displeasure to the Swiss ambassador, who had the audacity to forward it to us.

MATTHEWS: Why did we refuse to talk to Iran?

GARD: I have no idea. It‘s a great mistake. What‘s wrong with talking with them? The President Ronald Reagan spoke with, negotiated Stark 1 (ph), with the evil empire. Why can‘t the current administration negotiate with one member of the axis of evil?

[Diplomacy is not pretty – you have to deal with bad people. But not talking with Iran is a failure of leadership. But the name “Ronald Reagan” has no sway with neo-cons – indeed, Reagan’s “appeasement” in Lebanon began terror, well, according to neo-cons.]

MATTHEWS: Do you think the president was deceived in all the advice he‘s gotten about going into Iraq, getting very aggressive with regard to Iran, all this conversation we‘re hearing, all this chit-chat that goes on and on, this war talk, do you think it‘s bad policy or people are just bad? They‘re trying to do something to the president that is in no country‘s interest or are they just thinking they‘re doing the best thing and they‘re just wrong? How would you describe them?

GARD: I would say the latter, that they‘re just wrong. They have had this predisposition for regime change.

MATTHEWS: Cheney, the vice-president, his people, the people at the Defense Department, the civilians.

GARD: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All them are wrong.

GARD: Doug Feith, Cheney.

MATTHEWS: Yes well I think that‘s smart. Anyway thank you General Gard. You said what I think so I guess I think you‘re right.

[Very obviously, Chris, neo-con ideology is intellectually bankrupt – instead of admitting they’re wrong, neo-cons call for the bombing of Iran, invasion of Syria, and other nonsense. And they’ll blame Democrats, Michael Moore, and the French for their own failures – a failure of thinking and a failure of leadership.]