Jon Stewart Does Doug Feith

Doug Feith, a key neo-con architect of the miserable bloodbath in Iraq, appeared on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart to hawk his fabricated revision of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Stewart did a superb job challenging the legendarily arrogant con artist on his lies and deceit that helped produce one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history.

Feith, the former Don Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz toady, tried to pawn off his role in propagandizing the American people into going to war as if it were a benign effort laced with the best of intentions.

It was nothing of the sort.

Feith told Stewart's youthful audience that "errors are not lies," and that the Iraq debacle turned out to be "bloodier," "costlier," and "lengthier" than he or any of his neo-con friends had "hoped." He also claimed his clique of fanatic warmongers who comprised the "Office of Special Plans" had given "serious consideration" to the "risks" of occupying Iraq, and that people "misremember a lot" about the lead up to the war.

Bullshit!

I would have liked to see Feith respond to questions relating to the recently exposed Pentagon-directed program that sent out dozens of former military officers to appear on television as "message force multipliers" to pretend to be "neutral" war commentators while regurgitating Bush Administration talking points that led the nation to war. Media Matters has compiled a list of over 4,500 television appearances by the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" who functioned as paid propagandists selling the war to the American people. (Feith claims the Pentagon's P.R. efforts to build support for the war were innocently aimed at educating the public about the "threat" posed by Iraq. However, this elaborate program was illegal because during the Korean War, in 1951, Congress passed legislation forbidding appropriated funds from ever being used to propagandize the American people.)

I also would have liked to see Feith respond to questions relating to the fact that the Arab League, the United Nations, the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, Turkey, Russia, Germany, China, France, Pope John Paul, and 15 million protestors worldwide all opposed a U.S. attack on Iraq. If Feith really understood the "risks" involved in invading and occupying Iraq -- as he claimed -- then why didn't he take into consideration the sentiments of multilateral organizations, a large chunk of the world's population, and some of America's most important allies in the Middle East and throughout the world?

Feith could have picked up the phone and talked to just about any specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at any university in the world and learned that the only likely outcome of ousting the Sunni Baathist regime in Baghdad would be to strengthen Iran's influence in the region and Shia power in the Arab world. (Remember the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88? The Reagan Administration "tilted" toward Saddam primarily because he was a useful wedge against Iranian power.)

And those specialists Professor Feith didn't bother to call also might have told him that Iraq would likely splinter into a tapestry of competing militias, religious sects, and criminal syndicates of varying sizes and power once the central authority in Baghdad was overthrown.

Oh, yeah, and there'd be certainly some form of a nationalistic resistance to foreign occupation (especially to an occupier that is aligned with Israel and England). The Iraqis have a long history of resistance to the British, ousting the puppet monarchy in 1958 in a nationalistic coup.

And one more thing, the U.S. occupation of Iraq would probably fuel radical Islam and swell the number of "terrorists" just like the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did in the 1980s. There was no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" until after the U.S. invaded.

And Feith might have been told that aggressive war would alienate our allies and unite our enemies, not only in the region but in the world.

And it would cost a lot of American money and American lives.

And there'd be a humanitarian crisis given the fact that Iraq was on the brink of starvation even before the U.S. invaded.

And the aggressive war doctrine would signal China and Russia and other powers that if they had problems with a small country, well then, they might as well use their military power and go ahead and invade it, overthrow its government, and occupy its land, because -- after all -- the United States did it to Iraq. And they might as well torture people under occupation too because the Americans did at Abu Ghraib.

Good work Dougie-Boy!

Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for Feith's outfit over at the "Office of Special Plans" and resigned in protest after seeing how the nation was being lied to about the war, said Feith was "very arrogant" and he did not "utilize a wide variety of inputs." Feith, according to Col. Kwiatkowski, "seeks information that confirms what he already thinks."

But Stewart raised the key point at the end of the interview: Feith and his buddies, through misrepresenting what a war in Iraq would look like, in effect, removed the ability of the American people to make an informed decision about the wisdom of going to war.

Douglas Feith played a pivotal role in creating the current humanitarian disaster in Iraq. He should be in the dock somewhere awaiting a war crimes trial, not shamelessly promoting a self-serving and whitewashed "memoir" on Comedy Central.

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I really always disliked the argument that one of the comments above alludes to and that is if you disagreed with invading and occupying a sovereign nation you are somehow supporting Saddam Hussein -- which is an interesting argument given that people like myself were very critical of Reagan's support for Hussein in the 1980s when he was committing atrocities and were brushed off at the time -- fast forward and people are claiming: "so you want Saddam in power?" An oversimplification and unfortunate too -- since I guess people who hold that view really do believe that it has been worth $800 billion and 4,050 American lives -- and a humanitarian catastrophe far worse than anything Saddam ever did -- to remove a weak and shattered regime - it's just really weird to put those of us who advocated weapons inspections and working through the UN as opposed to this terrible war -- it's unacceptable to put us on the side of Saddam Hussein -- in fact, it's McCarthyism.

[ikez78]

Joseph,
What's with the utter vitriol and hatred for those with differing opinions? You don't really advocate having Saddam Hussein back in power do you?

Saddam Hussein, the terror sponsoring, WMD aspiring, money laundering, genocidal Saddam Hussein?
http://regimeofterror.com

[DLSprague]

I'm sorry I missed that Dr. Palermo. I hadn't even heard of this Doug Feith. What troubles me almost as much as the cold calculations and mass deceit that got us into this mess, is the more recent justifications after the fact, such as " Saddam was a terrible dictator who caused mass suffering among his people and he needed to be removed." Now, I'm hearing rumblings not just about how Iran is preparing for the ability to become a nuclear weapon bearing aggressor, but how their leader should be removed because of his Holocaust denials and obvious hatred towards, Jews and homosexuals. Ridding the world of "evil doers" is a monumental task.

[TexasDem0]

Jon Stewart should get an Emmy for having the courage to ask the questions the corporate owned media has refused to ask.

[Gregorio]

Feith, perhaps our own version of Dr. Goebbels, should indeed be put on trial for all his hideous crimes against humanity, but if truth be told, thousands more Bushista Mafia would be sitting there with him. This whole Bush era episode of lies, preemptive murder, theft and malfeasance in Iraq certainly ranks among history's most gruesome exploits. The shame that has fallen on our country will take many years to overcome. Putting these criminals on trial would be a much needed moral cleansing for the majority who know how tragic this war has been from the beginning. But this will never happen because we have an underlying problem: The undying third of our populace who revere these political goons, and a halo of near believers who still cannot believe our country's government has been hijacked by self-serving reprobates intent on extracting every last penny of the US Treasury for themselves and their "family." Can even an Obama presidency overcome such a dark legacy?

[sher2x4]

Well that settles it.
There is no God.
There is no Justice.
What a horrible way to start my day.

[Decipherer]

He actually should be "in the dock" (not "docket") before the International Court of Justice for his crimes, especially since he didn't even have the common decency simply to disappear after leaving his DoD post. Instead, he writes this book, for which one assumes he has received a handsome advance, and is now on the road promoting it, a process which includes a re-telling of history which is yet another BushCo pack of lies.

At least Georgetown University has reconsidered and had sense enought to withdraw its appointment of Feith as a professor at the school.

He is no longer a "professor,' thank goodness, and he certainly is not entitled to anything but being shunned.

[pros54]

I think Russia will not learn to invade a small country because they already know the hard way from their debacle in Afghanistan that such stupid adventures carry a big price. We could have learned that from them but we were deluded in the believe that it was our weapons and strength that defeated the Soviet Union again stories that are peddled by Feith and his neocon gang.

[pros54]

What amuses me is the usual tag line these folks use to support their deceit which is "all the intelligent organizations in the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction", and I always want to ask which organization, not that of our closest ally the Bristish, not the French9they run Niger and should know), not the Germans and definitely not the Russians yet they continue mouthing that statement and nobody challenges and even the Presidential candidate H. R. Clinton still has the gall to mouth and hoped to win the Democratic nomination for President. She of cause is deluded hence her continued Quixotic struggle.