To quote Christian Brose

"But go back to Iraq. Shouldn't the neo-cons be held accountable for their views? Yes. Them and a whole lot of other people -- Senators, Congressmen, and columnists, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, who seemly want to believe that the votes they cast and the articles they wrote in support of the war had nothing to do with how we found ourselves in it. Iraq was all the neo-cons' fault, and blaming it on them absolves the rest of us. This is a convenient untruth for a lot of people in this town today."
At the risk of being asked never to write again even though I agree with this paragraph completely, we must also be honest and mention The Washington Post, The New York Times and almost every publication that the once left wing Aussie, Murdoch has in his stable. They were so subservient to the Bush doctrines which came from the hated neocons and without these compliant mouthpieces, the situation would have been less effective and people may have demanded that certain policies, such as torture, had a better coverage and argument before it became part of the rightwing policy. It would never have had such an easy acceptance had the media questioned it as counter to the Geneva Convention. I mean really questioned. Then the activities of vice President Cheney, possibly the most dangerous man of the Iraq period, always appeared in favourable terms in the media. Why? Do we have to wait until the passing of this man before we really start to publish the things he controlled, which included the naive and artless President, like a puppet on a string, bumbling his way through life.
So there are others to add to your list, Christian, of those responsible for this disgraceful period in US history. 4,000 men...what a waste. 200,000 Iraqis and on.
It is almost safe to say that the loss of such numbers even overshadows the US dalliances in South America in the past 50 years, propping up dictators, overthrowing democraticaly elected governments and using the well-honed US arrogance to achieve their aims.....regardless. What the hell did all that achieve as well? They all hate you.
A chance to redeem these acts is just arround the corner.....the Iran - US relationship. It is worth any effort you can make but keep those neocons with their evil single-minded objective (Israel) well away from manipulating the people who need to make this happen.
They all are elected and live in Washinton and have proven in the past, ad nauseum, that they have feet of clay.

Coming at this form a slightly different angle.

Good post but does it not beg the question what is wrong with American society, and the West more generally? In that it can launch a war against another nation on such dubious intelligence. Furthermore it did so without any serious questioning from the press or opposition at the time. Possibly the most worrying aspect of the invasion of Iraq in particular, and the repeal of other established international norms of behaviour in general, is the lack of any redress. In civil law if I kill someone the ‘I thought he might be going to buy a gun’ defence is generally deemed weak but we did not even get an ‘oops sorry about that’ to his friends and family. The US did not, and still does not, think it did anything wrong. It seems not to have even considered that deliberately shifting the blame for 9/11 to Iraq followed by claims of solid proof of WMDs, when in reality it had flimsy intelligence should carry some kind of penalty. The government committed two crimes first it perpetrated a fraud upon its own population, conning them Iraq was an existential threat, and then involved other nations in a war of aggression on another Sovereign Nation State. The punishment for the first crime was removal from office but the second crime was not committed by the Bush regime but by the United States of America, and co-conspirators, and has been largely without consequence. I use a modified ‘vale of ignorance test’ to see if such things are just; change the names of the States involved. If Iran invaded a neighbour without justification would we allow that to pass without comment too. What if Iraq did so, perhaps Kuwait, oh sorry I forget that actually happened – remind me was their some kind of sanction in that case?

Enough said.

Lots of silliness in this post.

Very funny, the bit about the viking helmet and the bone, and an effective rhetorical ploy to distract from the actual criticism of many of these individuals, like Kristol, which was not that they are prone to rape and pillage, but rather the far more straightforward fact of their enthusiastic advocacy of war in Iraq, and their predictions of all the good that would follow.

The very unflattering role of congress in the war is not lost on any commentaries of the war that I am familiar with. In most cases, however, members of congress were simply persuaded that invasion was necessary to halt WMD programs. They did not see the war as a good in its own right, that would lead to recognition of Israel, establishment of a bulwark and military base in opposition to Iran, the demise of OPEC and dominoes of democracy. This is the special province of the war enthusiasts.

To suggest that these war enthusiasts (I won't get into who is or isn't a neocon) were not more closely aligned in the last decade with Republicans than Democrats is ridiculous.

The war enthusiasts were badly wrong, and the consequences were very large. Still, they themselves mostly refuse to take responsibility for their role, conceding as mistakes only such things as 'misjudging the degree to which Saddam had crushed the spirit of the Iraqi people.'

For this they merit our disdain, or even contempt, and their analysis and prognostications should be received only very skeptically.

You are right that much of the US was prepared, after 9/11, to wreak violence on someone else. You are wrong to discount the role of the war enthusiasts, however. I believe most Americans were prepared to go to war to get the WMDs, but not to pursue the other grandiose goals of the enthusiasts.

Thus a case had to be made. Let's not pretend, either, that this was done without intentional deceit. Bush's Niger claim in the 2003 SOTU was clearly crafted to sidestep the fact of the disagreement of US intelligence. And this originated in forged documents.

Rest assured the enthusiasts would be the first ones taking credit had their rosy scenarios come about. Likewise, they deserve the lion's share of the blame.

You have to a degree ruined my day. I have been trying to avoid the sale and distribution of weapons as it is a subject that warrants a UN Assembly all by itself. Then when you venture into the world of "replacing" governments, supporting dictators, "regime change" and just direct your attention to South America alone, you will have a years reading on this subject alone. If you ever find the US NOT involved in these matters please advise. In 50 years, the US has gained nothing in that geography. Nobody likes the US south of the border, so to speak. Some of the perpetrators, Kissinger for example, still enjoy respected status in the US and yet the number of people murdered in his time as Secretary is astronomical. Go and visit Chile. Nothing to be proud of there. Nothing to be proud of anywhere! Probably some of those CIA trigger men are still getting US government checks each week and still plot and plan as best they can the next dalliance into the countries of those who may have dared to elect a socialist government or even a President or Prime Minister that someone in State doesn't like particularly. Doesn't fit the mould, that kind of thing.
So while we are currently enjoying the hopeful outcomes of a G20, a similar stucture shouild be formed to ensure that such stupidity as displayed by the likes of Bush and Cheney, led along by the nose by the neocons, cannot happen again. Words, I am afraid. It will never happen. The US military- industrial complex is too powerful. How many in that group are on the verge of bankruptcy in these hard times. NOT ONE.
Must mean something.