* parry:
"The Nov. 7 elections are shaping up as not just a choice between Republicans and Democrats, but a test of how gullible – and how divorced from reality – the American people have become.
In campaign stops across the country, George W. Bush is delivering a medley of his favorite lies, half-truths and non sequiturs about Iraq and the “war on terror.” Yet the President’s listeners seem to revel in the distortions, celebrating with shouts of “USA! USA!” and responding on cue when Bush has them mock the Democrats.
Some appearances have a Lord of the Flies quality, as excited Republicans rally around their strong man hailing his pronouncements even when they make little or no sense, or when they celebrate the misjudgments that led to the disaster in Iraq.
[]
What is perhaps even more unsettling is how willing and even eager so many Americans are to be misled, finding some pleasure or a sense of unity in Bush’s lies and deceptions. It is hard to imagine a democratic Republic surviving with such a debased public discourse."
* Richard Perle :
Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.the 1% mocktrine.
I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.
[]
And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”
* pape:
"Understanding that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism has important implications for how the U.S. government should conduct the war on terrorism. Over the next year, the United States and its allies in Iraq should completely turn over the responsibility for Iraq's security to Iraq's new government and should start systematically withdrawing troops. The Bush administration should similarly revisit the deployment of all U.S. military personnel in the Persian Gulf region. The West managed its interests there during the 1970s and 1980s without stationing any combat soldiers on the ground. This "offshore balancing" approach kept our forces close enough that they could respond in the event of an emergency that posed a direct threat to U.S. vital interests. In order to effectively fight al-Qaeda, the United States should complete the transition toward a similar "offshore balancing" strategy by the end of the Bush presidency."* clemons:
"If the Senate race turns out 50/50, and if Chafee wins, Reid should begin secret negotiations immediately with Chafee to bring him into the Democratic caucus as an Independent. Offer Chaffee whatever he needs to make that happen. If Chafee wins it will be because of independent-leaining Democrats, independent-leaning Republicans, and Independents."
2 comments:
Perle's response to VF's pre-publishing release tells me all I need to know about the supposed mass neocon epiphany, even discounting from Ledeen's intellectual, mental and moral vacuity.
If you believe what you say, and it needs to be said, you say it. Facts are facts and the truth is the truth, period. In this case, his is the opinion of one of the architects of the current US foreign policy. If, if, it is in genuine dissent with the policy's current execution, then it is an opinion that needed to be shared with the electorate on the eve of an election whose single biggest issue is the war that policy birthed.
In setting a precondition on his comments, Perle says loudly that the truth, if you're going to bother to speak it, is still only to be spoken when it's convenient, or when it's no longer inconvenient, in this case politically to the GOP, the WH, and the neocon agenda. If he intended its dissemination only after the electorate could no longer benefit from that kernel of truth, it suggests its telling was only for the convenience of covering his own ass and salvaging some shread of his reputation. In other words, his epiphany, and likely those of the other neocon prodigals, are as worthless as an Enron stock certificate.
Whether they're covering their own asses, playing a game to throw dirt on VF, or jumping on the RNC's 'deny the WH' bandwagon to salvage what they can from their project, they're still amoral, lying bastards devoid of any sense of responsibility for what they've wrought, deserving of no absolution for their sins.
well sed.
fp'd
Post a Comment