What happened to the reputations of the Neocons that supported the invasion of Iraq?

I haven’t heard much over the last few years from the cadre of various think tank & media darling necons that were pressing hard for the invasion of Iraq in the early stages leading up to the invasion. They used to be all over the various media, but it seems you’d have to raise a posse to flush one out these days.

If you’re a think tank writer what do you do when your ideas and predictions have been utterly discredited, and many people think you and your ideological fellows are a pack of credulous and analytically incompetent retards.

What are these guys doing for a living these days?

They live on, like Frankenstein’s monster. Did you REALLY expect other wise?

…I had the biggest laugh the other day when I clicked through to the Project for a New American Century to find out the account had been suspended! Absolutely made my day.

(Anyone want to pay the bill?)

Do you seriously think any of them have had a professional setback?

Name a neocon and I trust that their sinecure at Heritage or the American Enterprise Institute remains. Tenure can also be cushy, but at least academia has the concept of peer review.

PNAC hadn’t been updated since 2006. I’m amazed it lasted that long.

Coincidentally, I’m currently listening to Robert Kagan on BBC Radio 4 touting his new book, that seems to gloat at Francis Fukuyama’s optimism:

It would help you if named specific people.

Here’s a list of one group of PNAC signatories (from a 1998 letter to Clinton, urging the invasion of Iraq):

Thanks to the Wayback Machine you can also see the signatories to the founding principles, which include Cheney, and Jeb Bush.

You are assuming that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, given what was known at the time.

It’s a widely held assumption. Much more widely held than it was five years ago. Much, much, much. Let me add to that, much much.

William Kristol is a columnist for the NY Times. He has lived on as a talking head and has had no professional setback that I can see. In fact, I often see him on talk shows and I don’t recall anyone really holding him accountable.

I saw him at a cafe in DC one time and I really wish I had said: “My friend Chuck was in the National Guard, he died without ever seeing his baby daughter, enjoy your lunch.” Maybe whatever kept me from saying that keeps other talking heads from calling him out.

I see by your join date that you weren’t a doper before the invasion. Believe me, plenty of us knew it was a mistake at a time. Particularly in the light of the public “invade Iraq under any pretext” ethos of some of the most influential people in the US cabinet, as exemplified by the PNAC names above. Or in other words, to quote Evil Captor, much much.

It was known to about a 99.9% probability that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, based on the inspections carried out by those tasked to do so; our President and his staff elected to (allegedly) believe otherwise. Our professional military leaders openly stated that we would need several hundred thousand troops to occupy the country after the invasion; our President and his staff believed otherwise, with the results that we have seen; Of course the invasion was a mistake.

Obviously. But the Neocons don’t seem to have any problem with the outcome.

At a quick glance, Sourcewatch seems to itself be highly biased.

It’s a little like asking why the commissars and other officials of the Soviet Union who were in charge of production were never called to task for the shoddy quality of the output. Regimes that are ideologically based (and I would count the Republicans) care only about ideological success, not mere physical reality (at least not until physical reality means a bullet to the head).

And anyway with regards to Iraq, the Neocons might be privately disappointed that things worked out so poorly, but they still think it better than to never have invaded at all.

I’ve been against the war from the start, but in all fairness I do not think that this is true.

And if they did have them, would they have ended up detonating in L.A. with any possible likelihood?


If I ever see him I’ll tell him that for you, if you want.

It might not have been true six months before the invasion, but it was certainly true at the time of the invasion, when UN inspectors went to all the places where WMDs were supposedly kept based on US intelligence and found nothing. We know now where the so-called intelligence came from. Remember that the invasion was not UN sanctioned because Bush couldn’t get even a majority of the Security Council to vote for it. (So, no vote was taken.) Also remember that the response to lack of evidence for the WMDs was to shout louder about how urgent it was to invade. Hans Blix said that at the time of the invasion he was convinced there were no WMDs. Plus, the Iraqis clearly didn’t try to make any of them ready, which we would have seen - why hide them when an invasion was imminent anyway? It might have been 99.8%, but it was pretty clear it was a fantasy.

What if it’s not lunch time?