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.
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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.