In an article that’s little more than a litany of current and former Washington bureaucrats who are against Bush administration policies, one paragraph really stuck out in its audacious asininity. The Washington Post reports:
Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. “She says we’re going to democratize Iraq, and I said, ‘Condi, you’re not going to democratize Iraq,’ and she said, ‘You know, you’re just stuck in the old days,’ and she comes back to this thing that we’ve tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth,” he said. The article stated that with a “barely perceptible note of satisfaction,” Scowcroft added: “But we’ve had fifty years of peace.”
There in a nutshell is reason enough to disregard what Scowcroft has to say. We’ve had 50 years of peace? What a completely ludicrous thing to say.
Does Mr. Scowcroft not remember:
- The Iranian hostage crisis?
- The bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983?
- Pan Am flight 103?
- The 1991 Gulf War?
- The 1993 World Trade Center bombing?
- The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing?
- The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa?
- The bombing of the USS Cole?
- And on and on…
Not to mention other less-than-peaceful episodes such as the Iran-Iraq war or the uncountable number of terrorist attacks against Israel over the last 5 decades. What “peace for 50 years” is Scowcroft talking about? The statement is not merely dead wrong, it’s so wrong it’s just plain nuts.
The rest of the article is not news. The post found some bureaucrats who oppose the war? So what? Did anyone think the Bush administration had 100% support among Washington bureaucrats before this blockbuster story broke?
More from The Strata-Sphere