Monday, November 06, 2006

Perle's genuine dissent

* Don:
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 said.

incidentally. it just occured to me (d'oh) that we should be using David Rose's newfound fame to promote the fact that he wrote the VF article on Sibel and also appears in the movie, and that he knows that Hastert took heroin cash. How do we do that?


mariamaria said...

We need to dump all the incumbents who voted for the war, and continued to support it after learning the truth.

lukery said...

mariamaria - that's a whole lot of folks. throw all the bums out.

Track said...

Why on earth would anyone want to base the elections on the actions of the President and his rubberstamp Congress?

On September 25, 2006, Commissioner Ben-Veniste acknowledged on CNN that, in order to reach agreement on the report, they had to limit their reporting to the facts and leave conclusions to the reader. Bob Kerrey also acknowledged limitations on the Commission's work and went much further:

Now it's beyond the (presidential) campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over. Mr. President, you knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see.