Richard Perle channels Sgt. Schultz

When the attacks of Sept. 11 came, a group of like-minded foreign policy wonks sprinkled throughout important posts in the Washington establishment — at the Pentagon, at the White House, at the State Department — saw an opportunity and seized it.

schultz
perle
All believed that the power of the U.S. military to mold the world to American benefit had in general been underused; all believed that public anger and fear over Sept. 11 gave them the chance to change that. They even had a first target in mind to demonstrate their theory: Iraq, an Arab country with no ties whatsoever to the attacks of Sept. 11 (although some would try to fabricate such ties as a way to advance their goals.)

The names are familiar to us now, and will be familiar to historians studying what became the single greatest foreign policy folly in U.S. history:

Among others, they include DIck Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, James Woolsey and of course, Richard Perle, all linked by, among other things, their ties to the American Enterprise Institute.

Yesterday, however, Perle denied ever having been at the scene of the crime. He has no idea how his fingerprints got there, no idea how the DNA samples could be traced back to him, no idea who those other men were really. And the idea that he had anything to do with getting us into Iraq? Nonsense.

Dana Milbanks of the Washington Post explains it:

“Listening to neoconservative mastermind Richard Perle at the Nixon Center yesterday, there was a sense of falling down the rabbit hole.

In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:

1. Perle is not a neoconservative.

2. Neoconservatives do not exist.

3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.

“There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy,” Perle informed the gathering, hosted by National Interest magazine. “It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy.”

So what about the 1996 report he co-authored that is widely seen as the cornerstone of neoconservative foreign policy? “My name was on it because I signed up for the study group,” Perle explained. “I didn’t approve it. I didn’t read it.”

Mm-hmm. And the two letters to the president, signed by Perle, giving a “moral” basis to Middle East policy and demanding military means to remove Saddam Hussein? “I don’t have the letters in front of me,” Perle replied.

Right. And the Bush administration National Security Strategy, enshrining the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom? “I don’t know whether President Bush ever read any of those statements,” Perle maintained. “My guess is he didn’t.”

“I see a number of people here who believe and have expressed themselves abundantly that there is a neoconservative foreign policy and it was the policy that dominated the Bush administration, and they ascribe to it responsibility for the deplorable state of the world,” Perle told the foreign policy luminaries at yesterday’s lunch. “None of that is true, of course.”

That’s just a taste of Perle’s efforts to write himself out of history. It’s rather astonishing in one sense, and rather predictable in another.

101 comments Add your comment

AJC/DNC Management

February 20th, 2009
7:58 am

Why are we dwelling on the past, again?

I thought this was the bright and shiny new era of hopeandchange.duh?

You know Oblahmi is going to lose the war in Iraq too, don’t you?

The mindless quest for a fall guy has begun in earnest.

ew

ByteMe

February 20th, 2009
7:59 am

That this happened at the Nixon Center seems perfectly consistent.

Mort Merkel

February 20th, 2009
8:00 am

Sounds like a Nazi after the fall of the Third Reich.

Mike

February 20th, 2009
8:08 am

Well, when you are blasting “neocons”, don’t omit our current Secretary of State:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

I guess Jay is satisfied that she has owned up to her advocacy of the war.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
8:13 am

I like the connection. “Nazi” is a good label for the likes of Perl and his ilk.

Mike

February 20th, 2009
8:17 am

AmVet -

Do you think that your childish vulgarity adds anything to your childish commentary? Grow up and spare us your cursing.

Mike

February 20th, 2009
8:20 am

Taxpayer –

I am sure your would call Hillary a Nazi too if she was a Republican. Since she is a Democrat and you are a partisan, you are willing to give her a pass.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
8:21 am

AmVet,

These scum will not go down without a fight. As Jay pointed out and as most of us have already been made painfully aware of, these low-lifes will lie, cheat, steal, kill, obfuscate, etc., in order to achieve whatever new world order it is that they aspire to so we the people will have to be forevermore on guard for the next Newt Gingrich (or even the current one that yearns to re-wage the Civil War under his terms) and their ilk.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
8:23 am

….casting Perles before swine…..

Mike

February 20th, 2009
8:25 am

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
8:29 am

“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”

Ayn Rand

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
8:30 am

You simply can not argue with this article.

Can’t pay or won’t pay?

Feb 19th 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

The president’s team wades into a debate over what is driving foreclosures

NO PART of the financial crisis has received so much attention, with so little to show for it, as the tidal wave of home foreclosures sweeping over America. Government programmes have been ineffectual, and private efforts not much better.

Now it is Barack Obama’s turn. On February 18th he pledged $75 billion to reduce the mortgage payments of homeowners at risk of default. Lenders who help people to refinance their mortgages will receive matching subsidies from the government. These could reduce a borrower’s monthly payments to as little as 31% of their income, and last for up to five years.

Firms that service mortgages held by investors will also receive fees for successful modifications. As a stick, Mr Obama reiterated his intention to alter the bankruptcy code so that courts can reduce mortgage principal. The details will depend on negotiations with Congress.

Some 5m homes have entered foreclosure in the past three years. Credit Suisse estimates that over 9m more will enter the process in the next four years. (In normal times, new foreclosures run at fewer than 1m a year.) Mr Obama predicts his plan will prevent up to 4m foreclosures. In a separate initiative, up to 5m borrowers will be able to refinance their mortgages at lower rates even if their equity is less than the 20% usually required by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the now nationalised mortgage agencies.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13145396

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
8:33 am

DEMOCRATS CAN NEVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH AND HURRICANE KATRINA.

DEMOCRATS = HYPOCRITE

Democrats strike different tone on Katrina.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic stimulus signed by President Barack Obama will spread billions of dollars across the country to spruce up aging roads and bridges. But there’s not a dime specifically dedicated to fixing leftover damage from Hurricane Katrina.

And there’s no outrage about it.

Democrats who routinely criticized President George W. Bush for not sending more money to the Gulf Coast appear to be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his first major spending initiative. Even the Gulf’s fiercest advocates say they’re happy with the stimulus package, and their states have enough money for now to address their needs.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihA0Z5ybW84SLeY3NQbodRanP0mwD96EH44G3

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
8:34 am

Mrs. Godzilla,
I remember you ranting and raving about Bush not doing anything for LA when Katrina hit. Your party is now the official party of hypocrites and liars. Read my posting above about how Pres Hussein is giving NOTHING to the city of New Orleans.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
8:35 am

This thread illustrates so much about what many detest about Washington.

The influence of nonelected officials, political appointees who flit in and out of power, never an integral part of the permanent bureaucracy, where some measure of accountability and repercussion may be possible.

What I wrote the other day about why I do not find Spkr Pelosi a person of integrity? Add Perle to that (notice there’s no title in front of his name, denoting office, function or past position?). One reason fits – integrity, or lack thereof.

All those professionals in the audience and not one had the sense to nail him down on the crucial definition, which allowed him more wiggle room than a toddler in a Santa Claus suit. Neocon. All someone had to do was to come prepared and ask “Mr. Perle, so-and-so wrote ‘neocon’ is (provide definition). You have written (provide example). Your actions and policy pronouncements (provide examples) indicate you fit the definition.” Then they could have followed up with an endless possibility of questions. Instead, those who should be in the business of writing history allowed Mr. Perle to begin rewriting it.

It would also be useful to show ‘the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom’ did not originate in American policy with the Bush Administration. Yes, Perle and others are tied to the Bush Administration and the end result of the application of their turning theory into action was Iraq. But the roots of those themes go back decades – one can cite post-WWII and Cold War plans and actions. It did not suddenly spring into being with Pres Bush and his advisors.

But, I suppose selective amnesia is the only kind of apology we’ll get. At least that indicates he’s not proud of how things turned out.

Eric

February 20th, 2009
8:39 am

Until Perle, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc, etc….are all in jail, our prison space is being wasted.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
8:41 am

Mike

Yes, you do an excellent job of posting those quotes from the democratic senators.

The dates are pretty important….aren’t they all before we found out how the intelligence was cooked?

From Alternet (and forgive me for posting in it’s entirity)

LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” — President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”

LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”

LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” — Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” — CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early ’90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” — President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?

LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” — President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States’ own intelligence reports show that these stocks — if they existed — were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” — President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts — including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report released this week — have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

RW-(the original)

February 20th, 2009
8:41 am

When the attacks of Sept. 11 came, a group of like-minded foreign policy wonks sprinkled throughout important posts in the Washington establishment — at the Pentagon, at the White House, at the State Department

Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, and James Woolsey? Really?

Let’s say that somehow Obama gets convinced to abandon Iraq and lose the war. Will Jay B then claim to have held a high ranking position at the Pentagon, the White House, or the State Department that helped him form this decision?

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
8:42 am

The Long Retreat

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating,” said President Obama, as he announced deployment of 17,000 more U.S. troops.

“I’m absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region, solely through military means.”

“(T)here is no military solution in Afghanistan,” says Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Said U.S. Commander Gen. David McKiernan yesterday, U.S. and NATO forces are “stalemated.”

Such admissions by our military and political leadership in a time of war call to mind other words heard back in 1951, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur delivered his farewell address to the Congress:

“(O)nce war is forced upon us,” said MacArthur, “there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

“In war, there is no substitute for victory.”

But if victory over the Taliban has been ruled out by the United States, have the Taliban ruled out a victory over the American Empire to rival the one their fathers won over the Soviet Empire?

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2009/02/20/the_long_retreat

Paul

February 20th, 2009
8:44 am

AJC/DNC Management

Speaking of mea culpas, remember when so many here insulted, condemned and used a variety of terms against Sen McCain, citing a NY Times article that ’showed’ Mr. Integrity was having, if not an affair, then a fishy relationship with a woman who was also a lobbyist, and even if it wasn’t an affair, then because she was a lobbyist, well, it just proved how unethical Sen McCain really is.

Well, the NY Times is publishing a statement which in part reads, “The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.”

Since the thread today is lack of public apology for being wrong, wanna bet how many who wrote all those untrue comments will, today, apologize?

C’mon, Management, bet me. I’ll bet somewhere between zero decreasing to infinity.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
8:47 am

Paul,

You might be asking a lot of the inquiring minds that would show up at the Nixon center to hear Perle. The question and answer session might be more revealing if conducted in a more appropriate setting. A waterboard, for example.

—————————

Some excerpts from Jay’s link:

Jacob Heilbrunn of National Interest asked Perle to square his newfound realism with the rather idealistic title of his book, “An End to Evil.”

“We had a publisher who chose the title,” Perle claimed, adding: “There’s hardly an ideology in that book.” (An excerpt: “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory.”)

—————————-

So, one minute this guy sounds more like a next-generation Hitler and the next he’s a lowly wanna-be Sergeant. Nazi scum is the more appropriate label.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
8:49 am

By the way, Paul, you would need to extend to negative infinity in order to decrease from zero. I’m a little picky about math also.

AJC/DNC Management

February 20th, 2009
8:53 am

The libs launched their little ship of fools and Limbaugh sunk it slam to the bottom of the fever swamps-

Dear Mr. President: I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it……..We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as “fairness” and “balance”? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?-Wall Street Journal.

bwa

~~~~~

Paul: The NY “Treason” Times has reviewed it’s most recent circulation and ad revenue numbers and is issuing an appeal to their two remaining readers, both of them located at the AJC.

“We did not mean to lie.”

Whatever.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:00 am

Taxpayer 8:47

You’re in rare form this morning! LOL!

I wanted to keep it kinda simple, which is why I referred to “decreasing from zero” rather than “negative infinity.” But it’s still a good point.

As I said, all the prevaricating and saying what he doesn’t believe or did not do, rather than standing up and saying “this is what I said, this is what I believe, this is what I did, let’s have at it” is pretty revealing.

AJC/DNC Management

The parallels just struck me. Perle – “I never said that, or at least, I don’t remember, so there’s nothing to apologize for.”

Bloggers who made accusations against Sen McCain, which affected his character, honor and family: silence.

Copyleft

February 20th, 2009
9:01 am

Richard Perle, like many former Bush adminsitration officials, has taken pains to distance himself from the crimes that have since been uncovered.

That doesn’t mean he was somehow innocent… just that he’s eager to avoid any responsibility.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:06 am

Thanks for once-again setting the record straight for the fact-challenged folks, Mrs. G. By the way, I saw another picture of Cheney the other day. I think someone must have asked him if he liked riding Scooters and he grinned momentarily before scowling back with his usual devilsh look.

Off topic,

I brought up Sarah Palin’s problem with back taxes and only one person, commie, even attempted to acknowledge that her tax problem effectively put her in the same category as those “vetted” nominees for Obama’s administration. Then, I brought up the IRS case against UBS (isn’t that the place that Phil Gramm works) and how UBS had to fork over back taxes for US clients that had sought to evade (and just outright defraud the US government) their legal obligation to pay their taxes like the rest of we the people. The scum. Anyway, where was the outrage from the conservatives. Maybe they all think that those instances of tax fraud and tax evasion are OK.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
9:11 am

Funny the spin on the NYT Vicki Iseman story.

She DROPS a 27 million dollar defamation lawsuit….and she wins?

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:15 am

Mrs. Godzilla

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:19 am

Mrs. Godilla

Who said anything about ‘winning’? It was a settlement. Both sides agreed – ‘win’ or ‘lose’ is not an element. Kinda like that ‘bipartisanship’ concept Pres Obama keeps talking about that Spkr Pelosi and some Republicans can’t quite grasp.

Even the public Editor of the Times criticized the story. Times said they did not mean to imply Sen McCain and Ms Iseman had an affair or that Ms Iseman acted improperly in her lobbyist and association with Sen McCain.

Unlike many who posted here.

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
9:20 am

Let me ask all of you bleeding heart libs a question. If Bush and Cheney did lie and commit crimes, how come NO ONE is going after them? Your comments are nothing but a broken record. Please do us right wingers a favor and file a lawsuit against them. Mrs G, take all of your copy and paste articles and find a lawyer to take your case.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
9:21 am

Implication takes two.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
9:21 am

Commie

Who says we aren’t?

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:23 am

Mrs. Godzilla 9:21

Say what?

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
9:25 am

Oh and commie….

ditto for your

8:30

8:33

8:42

I’d suggest this firm for you!

http://www.123posters.com/stooges7.htm

AJC/DNC Management

February 20th, 2009
9:26 am

So what we seem to have here are young lawyers eager to make their reputations by bagging a big-name Senator. Justice rules forbid issuing indictments too close to elections. These columns were tough on Mr. Stevens at the time, but the facts that have since come to light cast real doubt on the case. Though Mr. Stevens was a champion earmarker, the government never alleged much less proved that Veco got anything in return from the Senator. The formal charges are a low-grade felony — in essence, lying on forms. This is not like the charges against William Jefferson or Randy “Duke” Cunningham.-WSJ

The libs abusing their power to influence an election?

ew

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:27 am

Paul,

Gosh, I hope I didn’t write anything bad about McCain and the lobbyist he was boinking. Just kidding. Joke, really.

Good post earlier @ 8:35.

I’m glad Jay brought this up because I put Perle right there in with the camp with Nazi figures – complete ideological idiots – dangerous idiots – who, as you said, have no actual job.

But as to the aritcle above:

“And the Bush administration National Security Strategy, enshrining the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom? “I don’t know whether President Bush ever read any of those statements,” Perle maintained. “My guess is he didn’t.”

Bush may not have read it, because I don’t think he’d understand it – but Cheney and Rumsfeld sure as hell did.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:29 am

And, we all know (don’t we) what sort of spending programs (and there’s only one sort that will do) these neoconservatives at AEI believe will actually create and save jobs:

Compared with infrastructure programs that require lengthy planning, design and approval processes, extending efficient, already running defense procurements would have brief, as the military says, “flash-to-bang” times. And a dollar invested in such programs would not only circulate rapidly but would also have a multiplying effect, sustaining jobs not only among prime contractors but also among their suppliers. … Substituting accounting discipline for military judgment is not just questionable strategy but incongruous when the Obama administration is furiously trying to stimulate the economy. Moreover, in ignoring defense needs, the president will be passing on an obvious route to bipartisanship — pressing social-engineering liberals and green-eyeshade conservatives alike to focus on principled stimulus spending. – Donnelly and Schmitt

Funny, how infrastructure spending does no good but military spending just works absolute wonders for those people — the war-mongering, kill for a profit, neoconservative people, that is. All right, if that’s the way they want to play, I propose selling our nuclear technology to Iran and anyone else that wants it. I mean, after all, it will have such a stimulating effect on our economy. Let’s go for it.

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
9:29 am

Times did not mean to imply…..

But an implication was made.

They did not back down on what I think was the key statement of the article:

” Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:30 am

“right there in with the camp with Nazi figures”

Yeap, I wrote that. I need another cup of coffee.

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:35 am

Taxpayer,

“All right, if that’s the way they want to play, I propose selling our nuclear technology to Iran and anyone else that wants it. I mean, after all, it will have such a stimulating effect on our economy. Let’s go for it”

You’re funny.

A few months ago, I proposed that we invite all the terrorist to fight here instead of over there. I mean, all the gun people will get to use their guns to kill all the terrorist, and of course, we’d win. And I think it’s pretty cowardly to go from country to country spreading our freedom to other countries and getting all their civilians killed in the process. I mean, it’s our democracy we’re wanting so desperately to spread – I say let’s piss or get off the pot – and if we invite all the bad guy terrorists over here, then we can kill them all and then poof! the war on terror is over! Sounds pretty simple, huh?

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:35 am

Who said anything about ‘winning’? It was a settlement. Both sides agreed – ‘win’ or ‘lose’ is not an element. Kinda like that ‘bipartisanship’ concept Pres Obama keeps talking about that Spkr Pelosi and some Republicans can’t quite grasp.

Paul,

…Some Republicans…! By that, do you mean those Republicans that are not in the group of three. We don’t need bipartisanship from the Republicans — we have tripartisanship from them. Perhaps, most Republicans would have been more accurate.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:43 am

Bosch

Those National Security ‘documents’ are written by someone. And vetted by someone else. And voted and accepted by someone else. But to say the Pres didn’t read them is not the point. Others were acting on them or using them as justification (or as a club) as they implemented their ideas throughout the bureaucracy.

Mrs. Godzilla 9:29

Yes, implications were made. That’s what drove the lawsuit!!!

Yesterday in the Times: “An article published on February 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.”

The last sentence is key – it modifies whatever was in the article; more, it supercedes the interpretation many had from the article.

And many here wrote as if certain behaviors and results of associations were fact and cast some pretty ugly aspersions against the Senator and Ms. Iseman.

Management – Taxpayer

Appears I was correct. Zero to negative infinity in the apology department.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:45 am

Bosch,

I like your idea.

I think we also should have given the terrorists free tickets for the ride over. At least that way, we could be assured that we are indeed fighting terrorists and we would not be putting other innocent people’s lives on the line to save cowards that would rather send other people’s children off to other countries to do their bidding for them.

G

February 20th, 2009
9:47 am

Perle: But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different.

No, you would have invaded Iraq. I remember the years of listening to the Bush Administration fend off all criticism of Iraq by saying they had to fine tune the strategy, or change this or that tactic. Perle is doing the same thing here: “see, I would have sent ‘em in on the left flank and everything would be different…”

The fact is, the central criticism of the Iraq war is not in the details, but in the fact that it exists at all. There is nothing Perle would have done differently. He would have leveraged the same corporate interests in rebuilding and been fleeced by them. He would have treated all the citizens of that country as a monolithic cardboard-cutout “Arab” and be unable to manage their interests.

The only thing one could do to handle Iraq differently would be not to invade it.

There are no “ideas” (and let’s face it, we’re being charitable when we use that term) that Perle and his neocon friends have that is not thoroughly and utterly discredited at this point. They clearly are incapable of performing logic from premise to conclusion, but rather justify it backwards.

At present, neocons are nearly as discredited by history as are neo-Nazis.

Google “doomsday plane 9/11″, there are pictures and everything.

Truth

February 20th, 2009
9:47 am

I find it so funny when a libral calls someone a coward.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:51 am

As for North Korea, I suggest that we put a big “X” on the ground in the Dallas, Texas area and send a google-earth image of it to their leader along with the caption, “You couldn’t hit the side of a barn with Cheney’s shotgun if you were standing right beside it. You feeling lucky, punk. Take you best shot.”

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:51 am

Taxpayer,

Hell, we could even pick ‘em up on our Navy ships and bring ‘em over, you know since they don’t have any and all. And yeah, instead of sending off our own sons and daughters, we can just all fight right here together – you know, since exterminating these terrorists is vital to the survival of our nation, and since we are all in this together, we need to all fight together to preserve our way of life and prosperity – I might even go out and buy a gun.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
9:52 am

Taxpayer

Dallas? As if the terrorists wouldn’t face enough guns, they’d get smashed over by all the pickup trucks and SUVs.

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:53 am

Taxpayer,

No, wait – Paul lives in Dallas.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
9:55 am

And many here wrote as if certain behaviors and results of associations were fact and cast some pretty ugly aspersions against the Senator and Ms. Iseman.

Paul,

Those would not be the same sort of people that were Palin’ around with terrorists, would they? I mean it’s one thing to throw some trash around on an anonymous blog but it’s a whole ‘nother level of white trash low to be tryin’ to stir up a lynch mob, dontcha know.

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
9:56 am

I find it funny when a neo-con wingnut calls themselves “Truth.”

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:02 am

Wait a minute now. Doesn’t Bush still believe all that Clint Eastwood/John Wayne rhetoric that he was throwin’ out now that he’s had to surrender his weapons — his big weapons — his really, really big, in your face, FU-2 Rapture equipped with Archie’ Bunker Busters. And, here I thought that when Kim Jong zoomed in on the big “X”, he would see Bush down there giving him the finger. Or, was that Cheney in a Wal-Mart Halloween mask. The coward. Always hiding in the shadows.

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
10:04 am

Mrs. Godzilla,
so you’re going to prosecute the former two term president? Good luck, whack job! Let us all know how Cindy Sheehan is doing. I hear she ain’t doing so hot since Barbara Boxer put her in her place after Sheehan vowed to take her seat in California. You libs are nothing but hot air. Always promoting conspiracy theories yet you never have proof of anything.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
10:04 am

Taxpayer

As the lawsuit settlement and the Times statement were current, I addressed that and people who drew certain conclusions from the article and posted them. Palin isn’t current in that context. It was not an exercise to determine who was at what level and how they compared.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:08 am

Bosch,

The next thing you know, they’ll be proudly sporting labels like “Justice”, “the American Way”, “Liberty for All”, and lest we forget, “Apple Pie”. And, those are just of few of the personal touches that they have probably added to their scale models of the Enola Gay. What cha wanna bet :roll:

Davo

February 20th, 2009
10:08 am

Yep…the neocons are a disgrace. But what about Pelosi and Reid? Look at the legislation…they backed them up 100%.

Two sides of the same coin.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:14 am

Paul,

Ooooh. So that’s how it works with you Republicans. The past does not matter unless you need it to make your own point. For example, dredging up McCain and how some people treated him. Sorry, Paul, I just could not help myself. Of course, you were just stirring the pot a little yourself, weren’t you. :roll:

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:17 am

I might even go out and buy a gun.

Bosch,

Hell, I might even buy bullets for mine.

Davo

February 20th, 2009
10:18 am

SA@Takimag – Crisis-Mongering

How President Obama’s haste and hysterics in passing his stimulus to alleviate the economic crisis is similar to Bush’s theatrics in addressing the terror “crisis.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmj8sLdijr8&eurl=http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/crisis-mongering/

Good stuff no matter what side your on.

Truth

February 20th, 2009
10:21 am

Bosch… Neo-con? Wingnut? Im just a redneck that loves his country and doesn’t like cowardly librals who want to destroy his country. That’s all. Sorry I believe in freedom and individualism. Sorry I am proud of working hard fo what I have. Sorry, even though I dont make alot, I take pride in what I can do for myself and my family. Sorry I believe in the American way… hard work! Sorry I cling to my religion and my guns… Im sorry all my beliefs bring out the worst in people like you who I know deep down really are good people. I will keep you in my prayers!

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
10:21 am

Damn, I feel good this morning!

Paul

February 20th, 2009
10:26 am

Taxpayer 10:14

Actually, as I said, it seemed appropriate in light of the Perle “What? I said what?” thread – that the NY Times settles over an article that many interpreted as proving some pretty unsavory things about Sen McCain and a lobbyist – then those people ran with it here. I kinda thought if it was appropriate for Perle, if not to apologize, then to at least acknowledge what he’d done, that it was also appropriate for certain posters.

But it kinda seems like some of those early missiles – ‘fire and forget’ – let alone acknowledge what harm may have resulted.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:27 am

I don’t think those AEI folks realize that the so-called “flash-to-bang” time is a function of one’s distance from the “flash” and the “medium” through which the “bang” must travel in order to reach an observer’s ears. By the way, a vacuum would extend that “bang” time to beyond infinity. It’s all about the speed of sound, dontcha know, unless you go philosophical and start asking about a flash happening in a place with no one around and if there was a bang at all.

Paul

February 20th, 2009
10:35 am

Taxpayer – Bosch

Using a gun? Not using a gun? Getting bullets for your gun?

Is this another one of those metaphors you scrupulously prim and proper types use for abstinence?

Or for Viagra?

mm

February 20th, 2009
10:37 am

Funny, the only time I hear anything about the Fairness Doctrine is when it is brought up by a wingnut. Gotta keep the troups fired up I guess.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:40 am

I know what you meant, Paul. Reaaaly, I do. But, frankly…

Just funnin’ a little. :lol:

Davo

February 20th, 2009
10:40 am

Disclaimer: I think FOX news is just as abhorant and partisan as you liberals do. However; this segment called Freedom Watch is exceptional. Alot of smart and independent thinkers on this forum. I would urge you to take a look at this for a better understanding of what the economy is going through.

Ron Paul and Peter Schiff on Fox News with Judge Napolitano part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWanZKXEST8&feature=related

Paul

February 20th, 2009
10:41 am

mm

You’re kidding, right? You never hear anything about the Fairness Doctrine addressed by any prominent Democrats? Senators? Congressmen? Maybe even a President?

Really?

Paul

February 20th, 2009
10:43 am

Taxpayer

I know your were.

And you’re right. There are likely a number of people who will say whatever they want about another person, no matter how outrageous, hurtful and untrue.

And not give a d@mn.

AmVet

February 20th, 2009
10:46 am

Mike, how many times are you gonna have to hear it?

Apparently quite a few more.

You ain’t the blog nanny here. You ain’t the sheriff. You ain’t anyone special.

Get over yourself, lurker. Or just go to hell.

Either way, it’s fine by me. And I imagine most others here.

Back out to keep paying for the occupation. And the bailouts…

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
10:47 am

I feel good too, Mrs. G. The sun is shining and there are no mushroom clouds on the horizon so I don’t have to calculate the “flash-to-bang” time in order to determine how long I have to stick my head between my legs and kiss my ass goodbye. Dang, I love every day that the war-mongering neoconservatives are in the minority.

getalife

February 20th, 2009
10:47 am

Biggest cowards in our country and the story will change under oath.

Of course, they will demand amnesty like that pos rove.

Barry

February 20th, 2009
10:53 am

So much for the more civilized discourse on this here blog. zzzzzzz

RealityKing

February 20th, 2009
11:04 am

Oh contraire…, history is already clear.

Histry shows that 9/11 is what happens to America if it continues to follow the likes of Jay and his drunken band of mindlessly passive liberals.

History shoes that 10 years ago the average Iraqi’s had no hope for the future because Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. He was in fact responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen in cold bloodly public view. He was a constant threat to his neighbors, a costly thorn in our fly boys side and he thumbed his nose at the world 17 different times as we tried to make nice. And according to those around him, Saddam held onto those madd ideas about controling the entire M.E. through distructive means until the very end. Yes indeed, history shows Saddam as a true model of how cruel dictators rise and hold onto power.

History shows that all of this clearly posed “a grave and growing threat to America”, as Bush so elegantly put it way back then.., remember?? It was so obvious in fact that it continued to get congressional approval, from both sides of the isle.

And finally, history will show, that today, Iraqi’s are voting in record numbers for their democractic government. One that truely represents all of Iraq diversities. One that has a bright future, even as an ally of America. Sound familiar??

Nope, there is no doubt! Iraq and its 26 million people are better off today than they were 10 years ago. No matter how hard Jay and the rest of the state run liberal media continue to try and progressively deverbalize it..

RealityKing

February 20th, 2009
11:11 am

DOW -116.13 -1.56%
7,349.82

But if we’re going to talk about channeling, lets talk about Obama’s natural ability at channeling confidence.., NOT!!

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
11:14 am

state run liberal media?

where or where is the fairness for those poor conservatives?

Dogs Against Management

February 20th, 2009
11:15 am

Back on topic, maybe Perle’s just a welcher.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
11:26 am

I mean, the neocons sent Rumsfeld over to Saddam and equipped him with all the nasty weaponry he needed to fight off his enemies so equipping Iran with weapons is just the fair and balanced thing to do. Am I right. Just ask Dick. On a side note, that would be the perfect after the White House job for Cheney, a talk show called Just Ask Dick. He’ll tell you what for. He’d even make the perfect co-host for Rush or an “analyst” for FOX. Wouldn’t that be a riot. Him on there every single day, day in and day out, going on and on about how Bush should have pardoned Scooter. After all, Scooter was just following orders, like a good little soldier.

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
11:29 am

Truth,

Thanks, and I will keep you in mine – you act as if only people who think like you do love their country and their family, freedom and individualism.

I guess it’s too much for ya’ to have someone retort to your lame ass statement @ 9:47.

But instead we get: “Oh, you liberals don’t love your country, Oh, you liberals don’t love your freedom, Oh, you liberals don’t love your families, Oh, you liberals don’t love God, Oh, I’ll pray for you…blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and more yada yada yada.

Taxpayer,

How DO you do the eye rolly thing? That’s awesome.

Paul,

Please. I do not need a gun to prove my manhood. :-)

@@

February 20th, 2009
11:33 am

jay, I’m familiar with one Pearl of Wisdom — liberals make up the vast majority within the community of conspiracy theorists. I think it has something to do with their inability to account for why their lives are so miserable. It will always be because of some conspiracy against them.

Get this! When an article was posted at some radical left-wing blogsite that portrayed the brutal death of Daniel Pearl, at the hands of terrorists, one idiot liberal responded with “His father created the war!”

‘Ya think he/she might have been cornfused? …thinking that maybe Richard Perle was Daniel’s father?

Meet Daniel Pearl’s REAL father.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph — another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Daniel Pearl was a JEW, and for THAT alone, our liberal academics found justification in his beheading.

Liberals often lose their heads to less than rational thoughts.

RealityKing

February 20th, 2009
11:39 am

Obviously its better to stick our hands back in the sand..

[Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/20/iran.nuclear/index.html)

Truth

February 20th, 2009
11:57 am

Bosch… I never said anything about you. I was apoligizing for my beliefs that seem to get you and all your people all frustrated. I am sure you love your family, country, and God. Now, the individualism part I might have an argument, but I in no way want to anger you even more.

Cherokee

February 20th, 2009
12:13 pm

Thanks for the lies link, Mrs. G. Fascinating stuff…

Bosch

February 20th, 2009
12:16 pm

Truth,

My people? Who is that? My only people would be the Bosch family and we don’t get riled up too easily, and just remember, you don’t know me, you don’t know a thing about me except what you see me write on this little blog, so please do not go ’round saying I don’t like this or I don’t like that because TRUTH is, you don’t know squat ’bout me. K?

But just so ya’ do know – I’m an artist – I LIVE for individualism and individual perspectives. And just so ya’ know, if I could name one philosophy that describes me, it would existentialist – look it up, if ya’ don’t know what it means. K?

And you should never apologize for your beliefs, who cares if you rile people up because you believe what you believe. It’s the judging thing you have to be careful with.

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
12:17 pm

To taxpayer and Mrs. Godzilla.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Mrs. Godzilla

February 20th, 2009
12:31 pm

Commie

cut and paste???

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
12:39 pm

Mrs. Godzilla,
yeah, to make a point to you and taxpayer. You claim George Bush is a criminal for going after Saddam yet plenty of democrats said the exact same thing long before Bush was in office.

Pot meet kettle.

Dave R

February 20th, 2009
1:05 pm

I’m going to try to inject some sanity into this little dust-up regarding Richard Perle this afternoon. Its my political version of the Butterfly Theory (for those who don’t know the theory read a book). This is not from the view of a conservative or a liberal (I’m neither – I’m a Constitutionalist), so I’m sure both sides will be jumping down my throat in a few minutes. Here goes:

It really only takes one person who is a really good liar to get his or her way. First, they need to be very, very convincing. Next, they need information that if questioned, can be shown to be RIGHT ENOUGH to warrant actions they desire from those they tell. Third, they need to be in a position of sufficient importance and familiarity to their target audience to have credibility on virtually any subject. Fourth, it takes a bit of laziness, indifference, lack of intelligence, or some preconceived disposition to the subject matter to allow action to be taken without getting a second opinion.

Now, this doesn’t remove the left-winger’s bumper sticker slogan of “Bush lied – thousands died”. Since I wasn’t in any room with him during the decision to go into Iraq (and neither were any of the posters on this site who are convinced of the above), I can’t say whether he lied or not.

But someone did.

We will never know whether it was Bush, Cheney, Perle, or anyone else in the past administration. For those of you looking for retribution in that regard, get over it; it ain’t gonna happen. Our government has become too large and too secretive to be able to find out who, especially if it is someone below the level of Secretary. But if it was below that level, then the President, VP, and every member of Congress that voted to fund the Iraq war have all been derelict in their duties, in that they ALL allowed information to be believed without asking for, and receiving secondary or tertiary proof of same. That includes Republicans AND Democrats.(sorry, guys but both sides are to blame on this one).

The Iraq war has been one of the biggest Charlie-Foxes in the history of this nation, after Vietnam.

The time for a sovereign nation to go to war is after we have been attacked (or if there is definite intelligence that a preemptive strike will keep someone from attacking – as in, if Soviet tanks were massing on the East German border during the Cold War). In my view, going after Afghanistan was justified following 9/11, as that country did nothing to rid themselves as a haven for terrorists and allowed those vermin to attack us. But Iraq? Nope. Even if I am very happy that Saddam Hussein finally had his neck stretched, the cost of that has been too high in American lives.

Both conservatives and liberals have been wrong on this issue; conservatives for blindly following Bush, and liberals for eschewing any military action at all, even when some has been needed.

Feel free to return to your endless name calling now . . .

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
1:08 pm

Commie,

You need to review my posts a little closer. Rumsfeld was originally sent to get in bed with Saddam back during the Reagan days. ew. :roll:

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
1:12 pm

Dave R,

Why would you think that all of us would be in disagreement with your 1:05. Why, dude, you are just so wrong to make such an assumption. :lol:

CommunistAJC

February 20th, 2009
1:15 pm

Mrs. Godzilla, here’s to you and HuffPo!

Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax

Mixed Media
by Jeff Bercovici

This is, without a doubt, the best correction of the week. Okay, the month. Aw, hell, I’ll say it: Best. Correction. Ever. From the Huffington Post:

Huffpo had posted what appeared to be a video of Fox News’s John Gibson jokingly referring to Attorney General Eric Holder as a monkey with a “bright blue scrotum.” That last bit is a reference to an unrelated news story about a Debrazza monkey that escaped from a zoo in Seattle.

Obviously, likening the first black attorney general to a monkey would be a provocative move at anytime, but it would be particularly inflammatory this week after the New York Post — like Fox News, a unit of News Corp. — incited outrage with a cartoon of a chimpanzee that some read as a racist slap at Barack Obama.

It didn’t happen, though. Huffpo now says the video of Gibson was doctored. By whom is unknown. The phony video has been removed from YouTube.

N.J,

February 20th, 2009
1:29 pm

Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and the others were depending on one thing. That the President of the United States would not distort the intelligence that led them to make their decision to support the president in his desire to engage in multiple wars.

One cannot criticise the decisions made by Democrats early in Bush’s administration without getting to the heart of the matter, which was that for reasons of “national security” he wrote an administrative order to all intelligence departments that Congress could no longer have “Direct access” to intelligence (because of supposed “leaks” to the news media that supposedly originated from Congress) but that all intelligence requested by Congress would have to be CLEARED by the administration first. Bush is still claiming executive priviledge because he knows that it is a felony to “lie to, or in anyway, directly or indirectly mislead the Congress” when it comes to making such critical national decisions.

There is no historical precedent for such a degree of misleading Congress or denying them direct access to the intelligence that would allow them to come to an independent decision on Iraq and Afghanistan.

No previous administration had been so unworthy of trust, and Congress was placed in a position where they had to trust the president. They were given no other alternative.

Dave R

February 20th, 2009
1:36 pm

N.J., that is so much bull!

We elect all of these jackalopes to be LEADERS, not followers. Stop trying to spin this one away from BOTH sets of Democrats and Republicans. If you don’t think that a Hillary or a Pelosi or a Kerry can’t call up the head of any intelligence service and ask them questions, you clearly have no idea about how government works. Executive orders (if what you claim is true) can be CHALLENGED, and should have been.

Lazy and stupid is what we elected. Lazy and stupid is what we got. We deserve better on both sides.

Dave R

February 20th, 2009
1:38 pm

On, and N.J.? If there was, indeed an executive order such as you describe, then a true LEADER would have simply voted against funding until he or she received the intelligence needed to make an INFORMED decision.

Greg Mendel

February 20th, 2009
2:04 pm

Richard Perle personifies the wingnut denial of reality. When confronted with facts — even his own statements — he simply denies them, changes their context, and refuses to take responsibility. I’m surprised he didn’t blame Jimmy Carter.

BTW, the Dow is about to drop below 7300. How do you like the Bush Legacy so far?

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
2:06 pm

What we did have after 9/11/2001, were Republicans, Democrats, we the people, all pulling together in a time of crisis as one nation. Under those circumstances, I believe that some or possibly many of our elected officials were definitely more vulnerable and more likely to be swayed to do things that they might not normally consider doing without at least more debate and time to consider the options. Time was of the essence and we needed to go after the criminals while the trail was still fresh. We needed to act for the sake and safety of our nation. The state of our economy is another such crisis and the need to act swiftly indeed may have forced some people to act more quickly than normal but in this case, partisanship was glaring — blinding, even. Not very statesmanlike behavior on the part of the Republicans. So, if we are going to expect Democrats to come together behind the Republican administration in a time of crisis and do things that they normally would not be expected to do, then it should work the other way as well. And, I don’t want to hear the complaints about not having time to comb over every word and about one percent of the bill being pork and lies about the bill not containing tax cuts. We are not talking about outlandish errors here. We’re talking about creating and saving jobs and helping we the people in a time of true need. That trash talk from Republicans to suggest something else is just so Limbaughish.

Dave R

February 20th, 2009
2:18 pm

Except when the independent Congressional Budget Office even says that the stimulus bill will not create jobs in the first 2 years, if ever. So why should we all juts get along when something so useless is being proposed?

“We the People” are supposed to help themselves, not rely on the all knowing, all caring Federal government who screwed up their financial markets in the first place with misguided polices.

And as I stated so eloquently above, we needed to go after Afghanistan – not Iraq. Iraq was a failure of both Democrat and Republican elected officials; none of whom could ever be mistaken for leaders, and had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.

Jay

February 20th, 2009
2:46 pm

Except that the CBO said no such thing, Dave. That is yet another right-wing fantasy with no basis in fact.

I have in my hands a letter from the CBO director to Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. It states that the Senate version of the stimulus “would increase GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010. It would also increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs.”

By the end of 2011, it says, the impact of the stimulus will have faded some, with an additional .6 million to 1.9 million jobs created as a result.

Taxpayer

February 20th, 2009
2:56 pm

Well, where was the outrage with the spending to save the financial system and I don’t mean just that drop in TARP bucket. I mean the real bucks. The total spent and the commitments made so far. Why do you think the bank stocks are STILL falling, for example. As much as I hate to see our government have to step up to the plate and spend money on the private sector as opposed to just letting them all fail, if they had simply done nothing, well, it would not be a pretty sight, to put it mildly. In fact, for some length of time, it would have probably satisfied some folk’s definition of the end times.

RealityKing

February 20th, 2009
4:11 pm

Keep reading Jay! Down to the part about the long term GDP shrinkage due to Obama’s spendilous bill. The great American shrinkage factor. Funny that…, from an AfricanAmerican President.