Under friendly fire

[acmavm]

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732091290.html?oneclick=true

August 7, 2004

Francis Fukuyama long advocated getting rid of Saddam. But the one-time Bush fan says his man botched it, writes Peter Fray.

<snip>

Francis Fukuyama used to be part of the Washington gang that happily filled in the gaps in George Bush's intellectual world. Several of his fellow members - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz - have played defining roles in the Bush presidency and will effectively meet their political fate with him in November.

Fukuyama, however, has departed from Team Bush over Iraq. Despite his ranking as one of the world's foremost public intellectuals and a leading neoconservative thinker, he will not be voting Republican this year and he thinks his old ally, Rumsfeld, should have resigned over Iraq.

"There seems to be this cultural thing that Americans don't resign, no matter what," he says. "But I think that people who are responsible for policy that hasn't gone well owe it to give a chance to somebody else. I just think they ought to be held accountable for policy failure."

<snip>

"The problem that has now been created is one of credibility," Fukuyama says. "He can get rid of his foreign policy team, go back to the UN and so forth, but I think there's something about his personality - who he is - that is going to make that impossible. I think under a different leadership you can do a fair amount to restore confidence."
**********************************************************************
NOTE: Put this here because it's not about the election really, it's about how bush* and his frigging cabal has screwed up bigtime.

[Cat Atomic]

1. Fukuyama can't admit that HE is responsible, too.

Bush didn't "botch" some wonderful neoconservative idea. He put into action. The ideology itself is a failure.

"Neoconservative thinker" is an oxymoron.

[Citizen Daryl]

2. They have to keep Rumsfeld in there.

After all, I'm sure he's integral in the "October Surprise" planning.

[whistle]

3. Sorry, link does not go to the article

[acmavm]

4. Try this, maybe I cut off the other one.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/06/1091732091290.html?oneclick=true

Oh, I just tried it and it goes to page that says you have to register to read the article. A lot of sites are that way, and you can either register and read it, or not. It's not unlike any Salon article that's posted. If you register, you'll go right to the article. Depends on how you feel about it.