Frist?

Here here. Neoconservatism is dead for the next generation, as was stated.

Ah, Kevin.

"This baby needs to be strangled in its crib. "

Liberals love killing babies.

Liberals love killing babies.

Too funny egbert. That's why liberals support abortions!

This baby needs to be strangled in its crib.

Too true, so why don't you propose writing an article in the same magazine where their apologia appears? I suspect WM's reach is not as great as that of VF and won't be till you guys start putting George Clooney on your covers (preferably with a blonde in a backless gown).

Remind me again who was most famously for the war before he was against it? And this was then a bad thing -- an obstacle to being trusted with high office, a character flaw so damning as to make a candidate unfit to receive one's vote?

It was only two years ago, surely someone remembers.

IOKIYAAR.

Which one is Trotsky? Where is his Mexico? Who is his Mercador?

Kevin,

Well and truly said. The neo-cons are right on one count--the Bush administration is profoundly incompetent and dysfunctional from top to bottom, but I am convinced that it is only because the Bush administration is profoundly incompetent that the neo-con ideas were given any attention. I don't think a truly competent administration would have bought into the neo-con ideas in the first place. People who were truly competent would have been able to see that the neo-con daydreams don't stand the test of reality.

As Bush 41 knew turning Iraq into some sort of Western democracy had no chance from the beginning. Resourse driven empires are a thing of the past. It is simply impossible to install democracy in a Muslim nation with no history of free or independent thought. Islam has yet to have its reformation and there is still a deep belief that designated "holy men" have some special power to guide the lives of average muslims. Until average muslims decide to shove the "holy men" aside there will be no democracy in the middle east.

Brilliant. Democrats and the media sabotage bringing liberty to Iraq, then blame neocons. Wow. That's just.. wow.

Hawk, tell the neocons they're screwing things up by blaming the Bushies. It's the Dems and the media... Hell, it's ALWAYS the Dems and the media, right?

I think that the original supporters of this war need to look at their own moral competence as acutely as they are examining Bush's management competence. Adelman says "The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless." That statement may be legitimate if you're talking about raising funds for the local girl scouts troop. If, however, you're talking about seeking to reconfigure the lives of others without their express - not conjectured - consent you've instantly gone beyond useless to intrusive: you have entered a realm that perhaps can be navigated with the most cautious moral humility in recognition of the uncertainty of costs and benefits. But if you have taken it upon yourself to change the lives of others by way of unilateral warfare then you have entered a realm of such profound assured costs for such uncertain benefits that it is unlikely to be morally navigable at all, and an adequate degree of humility would call out for seeking other ways. This seemed clear to many before the war, and by now it should seem clear to everyone else.

I'm confused. Does American Hawk actually believe the crap he spews here, or is he a parody troll like all the fake als? And is he cheney/charlie/joe schmoe under yet another handle?

I think the neocons deserve another chance. Let's see how they do at democratizing Iran. And if they screw that up, let 'em take a shot at China. It's only fair since they are so sincere and only have America's best interests at heart.

"The neocons have always been idealists, and their ideals saw full flower in the Iraq war."

Shorter Kevin:

The turd blossomed.

Fair enough, as far as the neo-cons go. But liberal hawks were virulently denounced as "neo-cons" when they advocated bringing down Saddam plus all the infrastructure defense, nation-building, economic engagement and development, Marshall-plan-style commitment, etc. (this is what was done in Germany and Japan, and it was bloody obviously the minimum requirement for any hope of success, though the neo-cons and their Cheney-ite implementers inexplicably ignored this fact.) The ultra-idealist pacifist anti-interventionists insist, because they must (not because of any actual analysis of evidence), that any such intervention was always doomed from the start. They said the same about Kosova and were utterly (and shamefully) wrong in that case, abetting the loss of many innocent lives.

It's too bad it's next to impossible to have an honest discussion, on the left, of when intervention is appropriate. This intervention may have been an unwise gamble even if all the obvious things had been done. And maybe not. Those who insist this outcome was knowable beforehand are pure ideologues (leaving aside that we could and should have known, perhaps even did know as soon as we heard Powell's vapor-speech at the UN, that there were no WMD).

Meanwhile, the world continues to do nothing about Darfur, and the left continues to hone its hypocrisy by ignoring, say, millions murdered by depravation in the Congo, in favor of sexier hotspots.

But hey, let's go back to Kissingerism with gusto. That will lead to much more progressive outcomes, right? Life out of balance.

I'm confused. Does American Hawk actually believe the crap he spews here, or is he a parody troll like all the fake als? And is he cheney/charlie/joe schmoe under yet another handle?

Yes to all.

RB: I don't think a truly competent administration would have bought into the neo-con ideas in the first place.

Spot on. In the Clinton years (remember those?) the neocons were called "the crazies" and they didn't get to start any wars.

But then we got a half-retarded narcissist for a president, and look at what happened.

Like a fucking power vacuum wouldn't have developed if they had deposed Saddam instead of Bush, Cheney et al?

What utter hubis-laden clap-trap.

"Every now and then America needs to pick up some shitty little country and throw it against the wall just to show that it can"....Michael Ladeen........Good times. Good times.

I guess he didn't get paid enough...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003350110

First Iran/Syria, then The Big One..France!....."Our children will sing songs about us"....Richard Perle

"We've Got the Whole World in Our Hands".....All the neocons

The neoconservatives are desperate to preserve their Wormtongue power and their lucrative careers in the face of the dissolute failure of their vision in Iraq. So they have been carefully setting up, over the last few months, three lines of defense to sidestep the blame that is rightfully theirs.

The first is to blame the Iraqis. The second is to blame those appeasing Democrats and their allies in the "liberal media". The third is to blame the Bush administration for being too incompetent to properly enact the Project for the New American Century.

On Thursday, Peters ralphed up the most hacktacular version of the first yet seen. American Hawk above shows the second has legs on the uber-right and now we have this bunch with the third.

Amazingly, many conservatives are willing to swallow this. Andrew Sullivan for instance, who is happy that his friend "Cakewalk" Adelman has turned on Bush, Cheney and Rummie. I quote: Thanks, Ken. You're a patriot. You've told the truth about men whom you know and care about. Because America comes first. And this country and its honor must be rescued from this incompetent cabal.

Puke-making.

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

Kevin, don’t be naïve. The invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with “bringing down Saddam, but has been about the oil since Day One. Make that before Day One. The neocons actually had two plans to appropriate Iraq’s oil before September 11th, according to investigative reporter Greg Palast. Plan B, involving a wacked out scheme to privatize virtually all Iraqi industry, and sell off bridges, roads, etc. was the Grover Norquistesque wet dream that won out. That plan really went well, didn’t it? That was the one where Paul Wolfowitz, that economic genius, predicted that the invasion of Iraq would pay for itself. More evidence that trickle-down economics and unregulated privatization schemes of conservatives are doomed to be abject failures.

Palast’s thesis is borne out by the little-noticed “national emergency” Bush declared regarding Iraq’s oil resources with Executive Order 13303. I don’t remember a lot of reporting on that Order, do you? I wonder why??

I, too, wrote about this insanity over at my place today:

"Daddy, buy me a pony!"
. . .

"Daddy, this pony smells bad, and tried to bite me. And it pooped on the floor! Make it stop, Daddy!"

The problem was in the occupation, an area that neocons have never cared a fig about.

The problem was in actual governance --an area conservatives have never cared a fig about.

But they could hardly be unaware of this. In Baghdad they had hoped to turn their incompetence to advantage and make it a showcase of privatization. At least that's what the neocons thought. Their petrol industry backers, I'm sure, were never so deluded --they simply wanted chaos.

For the 1998 PNAC regime change letter to Clinton from Perle and the neocons at the Project for the New American Century, see:

"The Iraq WMD and Intelligence Document Center."

America is in love with the use of overwhelming force. We think we have a right to act out our authority with the largest military force in world with entitled rage because of some past good war-like deeds performed a half-century ago.

Men like Richard Perle are evident proponents of the use of our overwhelming force without consideration of the consequences to real people. To men like Perle, Wolfowitz and Kissinger real people are useless eaters, preventing the willful use of the power history ambivalently provided to our nation. I would like to see the operatives who have led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq investigated and pursued with the precedents established by the Nuremberg Trials and imprisoned if found guilty of crimes against humanity. They are all neo- Rudolf Hess's and deserve the same fate.

"Democrats and the media sabotage bringing liberty to Iraq, then blame neocons."

Um, just HOW have Democrats sabotaged bringing liberty to Iraq? The Republican't majorities won't even let Democrats bring amendments to the floor. They don't tell them where the committees are meeting. They have not let them participate in anything regarding this war.

So Democrats have HOW sabotaged liberty in Iraq?

By not turning up in enough numbers to vote the Chimp out in '04. That's the only way I can think of.

Frum is already pushing back over at HuffPo, where he maintains he meant the problem was not Bush, but Condi. (Whom he doesn't mention by name; he says "National Security Council" instead.)

So is he saying that Bush "just did not absorb the ideas" because Condi failed to drill them into him? Hard to tell. And BTW: who was it that hired Condi, and kept her on, and then promoted her to Secretary of State?

So many questions, so few straight answers.

Final note: though Adelman criticised him by implication, the Vanity Fair teaser contained no direct badmouthing of Cheney. I won't be surprised if the same is true of the full article.

Our favorite Iraqi exile chimes in about Wolfowitz and himself:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003350110

"The neocons have always been idealists"

The neocons have always been IDEALISTS? Since when?!

What sort of idealism is it to say, like Michael Ledeen once said, " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." ?

Far from being idealists, the neocons have always been about power. About the United States getting, keeping, and periodically USING brute force to maintain their so-called 'benevolent global hegemony'.

Throw some small crappy little country against the wall - not because we have to, not because they've done something particularly offensive, but "just to show the world we mean business".

THAT'S what the neocons are all about, what they've always been about.

Those who insist this outcome was knowable beforehand are pure ideologues

No. Of course you could argue about 'knowable'; I didn't know the war would be a murderous bloody fiasco, but I would have bet everything I owned on it. The odds approached certainty, let's put it that way.

It was always easy to go in, almost impossible to get out cleanly. It was an immoral war, legal only by the thinnest tissue of U.N. cover. It was a post-colonial idiot trap, and Bush I was smart enough to see it, and stay out. Bush II isn't smart enough speak coherently.

So, no. I'm not an ideologue, and I knew.

the neocon hawks began claiming that there was nothing wrong with their ideas, only with the fools who had bungled their execution [...] This baby needs to be strangled in its crib

But isn't this what, effectively, every Democratic politician, every media pundit, every leftie blogger, every liberal hawk (those serious-minded folks) who was stupid enough to support this war has been saying?

By focusing on the execution and prosecution of the war, the incompetence dodge, doesn't that let the ideas themselves (and the pundits' earlier support) off the hook?

We learn the wrong lessons by focusing on the "execution", and we legitimize the idea of preventative war over the most trivial of threats. This place, WM, is one of the most prolific purveyors of the "incompetence dodge"....though I believe Mr. Drum arrived at his beliefs honestly, and not through careerist motives like most other "liberal" bloggers.

Over at The Corner they are whining about how the VF reporter promised the story would not break until after the election.

As for Rubin's speculation there about how we will lose the trust of our allies if we leave Iraq, maybe we should ask them what they think about it.

I see the defeatocrats have taken over all four branches of the military...

Which part of this picture does not belong?

K-Drum: "The 1997 "Statement of Principles" of the Project for a New American Century, the neocon Bible, was signed by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Scooter Libby, and Elliot Abrams."

Answer: Wolfowitz. He's a neocon. None of the others are.

I mean, Cheney? Zal Khalilzad? Neocons? When did that happen? WTF, mate?

Back when the Democrats ran things. Good times, good times.

The failure of Iraq is inherent in the naive idealism and fixated ideology of neoconservatism

Damn it, Kevin! Why are you such a compromiser? Read Frum's comments again. They are not upset about their idealist bubble getting popped. They are upset because the puppets did not follow the puppeteers. They will just start looking for the next set of puppets.

It's not just Bush who does not accept responsibility for mistakes. It's the whole cabal. If there is ever an admission, it is procedural--being betrayed--not substantive--wrong on issues.

Wake up, Kev! Nothing changed.

Oh those blissful Publican years...

Back when the Democrats ran things. Good times, good times.
Posted by: rnc

I suppose that to small-minded cowards like most repubs, the following statement would be the equal of a blank check for unilateral pre-emptive war.

the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

... but then, to someone with 2 firing neurons, there is a whole spectrum of "appropriate actions" which we could employ prior to killing 400,000 Iraqis and 3000 Americans.

The three cons: Conservative, Neo-Conservative and Confidence,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805

Four days before the election, as Republican candidates battle to save their seats in Congress amid a backlash over the war in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News the administration is going "full speed ahead" with its policy.

"We've got the basic strategy right," Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on "This Week."

Whom is kidding whom?

It's the stupidity stupid!

"It's too bad it's next to impossible to have an honest discussion, on the left, of when intervention is appropriate. This intervention may have been an unwise gamble even if all the obvious things had been done. And maybe not. Those who insist this outcome was knowable beforehand are pure ideologues (leaving aside that we could and should have known, perhaps even did know as soon as we heard Powell's vapor-speech at the UN, that there were no WMD)."

Basically the opposite of what you say here is the truth. The only place one can have an honest discussion on use of force is on the left. The left has various levels of support for various wars based on the particular conditions of the war. It is on the right where almost everyone is violently for every war started by a republican and violently against every war started by a democrat in the past 30 years.

Of course this outcome was knowable. Most of us who opposed the war were afraid of something exactly like this. A long, bloody, expensive occupation where Iraq becomes considerably worse for who knows how long and a new generation of jihadi's are recruited and trained.

Personally I thought success was possible as in that there was some chance that disaster would not result (especially had several years of groundwork been done, most critially slapping israel around till that occupation was over), but not likely enough to take the risk with the war bush was planning to execute. It is the right who were so idologically certain that failure was impossible. The war would be cheap, fast, and gloriously successful. That those who had not supported it would come crawling on thier knees to beg forgiveness. Wolfowitz laughed in congressional testimony when it was suggested that the occupation might take more troops than the overthrow. Right wingers I know rolled thier eyes at me when I told them it would look a lot more like the palastinian territories than the liberation of france in ww2 and would cost hundereds of billions of dollars.

Now they are down to claiming that no one could have predicted this. Well, tough. People did predict this. You were wrong. You were wrong and hundereds of thousands of people are dying because of it.

Try to learn from your mistake. Maybe next time you can do better.

"So Perle and friends blame the failures in Iraq on the Bush administration, and Chalabi apparently blames Wolfowitz and the Americans. Funny, nobody seems interested in blaming themselves, even a little bit." - Laura Rozen

http://www.warandpiece.com/

Buck

Neo-cons don't admit their failure because they can't. They all have made careers out of being neo-cons. Think of the book deal money lost. The revisionist histories they will never peddle if they admit they were wrong.

Actually, the neo-cons are just as dumb now as they were then. Arrogant in their ignorance to the point of invincibility, they are the penultimate products of formative years wasted in ivy tower think tanks. The world would have been much better off if they had all taken long European vacations after graduating from college, or if they had all simply gotten laid as young men, or better yet, both.

One of the telling recommendations in the original PNAC document was for the USA to develop biological weapons based upon genotype. So basically they want us to have weapons which will kill all the blacks or Chinese or Indians, and just the targeted race, and no one else.

These are genocidal maniacs.

Hold down the fort Ron - I'm off to stump for Claire.

Um, just HOW have Democrats sabotaged bringing liberty to Iraq? The Republican't majorities won't even let Democrats bring amendments to the floor. They don't tell them where the committees are meeting.

I'm with Cal Gal on this, Chicken Hawk. Give us the names, dates, places, events. And your usual "Liberals always sabotage everything good" won't cut it.

1. Doncha know that Iraq is all Clinton's fault? He signed the Iraq regime change legislation. Not surprised the quoted neocons were too stupid to pin it on Clinton.

2. The "rehab project" will never be "stopped dead in its tracks." Idealogues are never budged by data or outcomes. The neocons will be just like the die-hard Commies who argue to this day that true Communism has never really been tried. Unlike the Commies, however, the neocons will rise from the dead, because the U.S. will remain powerful and there will never be any shortage of people who think raw power can accomplish anything. All the Vietnam defeat told them was that you have to do it even harder and stronger the next time around.

3. The games have just begun. This is going to be a massive scapegoatocity. More fun than watching mud wrestling.

Idealists, bullshit. Real idealists believe democracy can be spread peacefully!

These guys (the neocons) are thugs pretending to be democrats. They want an Empire, and no lie is too big to get one.

Um, just HOW have Democrats sabotaged bringing liberty to Iraq?

Most of the Democratic Senators, including your brave hero Kerry, supported the Iraq resolution in the Senate. If they had performed due dilligence and forced the adminstration to plan for the post-war period before giving their approval, history would have been different.

I think they purposely failed to perform their duties to think long and hard and very critically when they voted willy nilly for the war. In my book that is the most evil form of sabotage.

Strangle the prince of darkness in his crib!

NO way dude.

I really want to know what else Perle has to say on the subject? I wonder if Meet the Press is going to have Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman on tomorrow?

AND IT WOULD REALLY be NICE to have some RICE on at the VERY same time. I really want to know what Ms. Deadly Dysfunctional has say for herself.

great fake AH

"This baby needs to be strangled in its crib". Damm! Ouch! I bet when you were a little boy they kicked you out of kindergartner because you didn't play around.

This baby needs to be strangled in its crib

I'd prefer to drown it in the bathtub.

"The neocons have always been idealists"

Nah, more like utopians. Like the fascists, the communists and the libertarians.

Here here. Ideology is always the problem. My formulation is that ideology is unAmerican.

Classical Liberalism is not an ideology but rather the embrace of system of decision making based upon compromise between competing interests. It's an operational outline, not a system of belief. Liberalism of the boogyman variety as defined by the right isn't an ideology either but rather a string of positions on a laundry list of issues. There is a common theme in small 'l' liberalism but it is vague and hard to define. I say it is seeking the most possible freedome for the greatest amount of people. Th

Ron Byers, I agree with you on the foolishness of BushCo and the neocons' attempt to "remake the Middle East" as a resource-driven empire, but not on this:

"Islam has yet to have its reformation and there is still a deep belief that designated "holy men" have some special power to guide the lives of average muslims. Until average muslims decide to shove the "holy men" aside there will be no democracy in the middle east."

Actually, Islam has indeed had something in the way of several different Reformations (or Schisms) starting with the Sunni-Shiite split and extending to variations such as the Sufis and the moderate forms of Islam predominant in e.g. Malaysia. And Turkey, after all, is a decently functioning Muslim democracy, although I fear that it too may fall to a strongman in large part due to the Iraq War mess-- the fracturing of Iraq would almost certainly draw in Turkey and potentially lead to the downfall of the Turkish republic, since the war over Kurdistan and protection of the Turkomen people would be all-out and very, very nasty. In any case, Turkey's democracy was organic and homegrown.

I hope the first order of business for the House Dems leadership is to investigate the PNAC and see why Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman are freaking-out so badly.

If GOP losses are big Tuesday, get ready for more of this....In fact, whatever the outcome, it is not like the election is going to make Iraq and its chaos go away...We are headed to 3,000 dead soldiers by the end of the year. And we have no good options left...Consider this the beginning of the intra-neo-con crack up battle....it isn't going to be pretty...

American Hawk,
Nice dodge. I thought Smirk was the Decider? Do you think he would have listened to Congress? From Darth Vader's comments today, that is and was highly unlikely. Take some responsibility for once!!

But this war had such promise ...

Hank,
Why won't it be pretty? Maybe we'll get to see Bill Kristol flip out on Richard Perle live on TV, or Michael Leeden try to stab Rummy with a butter knife. We can only wish such a thing comes true

All neocons should emigrate to zionist Israel. Good riddance to the traitors.

so this would make them flopflippers????

Brian Reddy: "I think that the original supporters of this war need to look at their own moral competence as acutely as they are examining Bush's management competence"

Agree 100%. I have become more and more impressed by Gandhi's writings since Bushco took control. Perhaps the Neo-cons would benefit from reflecting on Gandhi's list of Seven deadly sins:

--wealth without work
--pleasure without conscience
--knowledge without character
--business without morality
--science without humanity
--worship without sacrifice
--politics without principle.

I don't see "attacking other countries without just cause or a follow-up plan" on Gandhi's list, but perhaps it is subsumed under "politics without principle," "business without morality," "knowledge without character" OR even "pleasure without conscience" (given Bush's history of antisocial behavior.)

Or consider this powerful statement of moral purpose by Jacob Bronowski in 1973. Could the neo-cons ever, ever speak with such moral clarity.

A blast from the past....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003350110

It was common knowledge from day 1 in the Bush administration that foreign policy was controlled by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Condi has always been weak. That's why she was chosen as National Security Advisor in the first place. Powell's "disloyalty" was simply his justified criticism for being repeatedly sandbagged by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Cheney and Rumsfeld -- the Edger Bergens of American foreign policy.

To call ist idealism, naive or otherwise is to give these people more legitimacy and respect than they deserve. It's idealism only in the sense that fascism is idealism.

Went over the corner, thanks for link.

RE: VANITY FAIR [Michael Rubin]

Okay, a couple of notes about the Vanity Fair piece in which I’m quoted. Some people interviewed for the piece are annoyed because they granted interviews on the condition that the article not appear before the election. Vanity Fair is spinning a series of long interviews detailing the introspection and debate that occurs among responsible policymakers every day into a pre-election hit job

Jeebus, saying that Rice was Deadly, Dysfunctional was just some daily “introspect and debate” and was simply the job of those “responsible policymakers” not to focus on war strategy but instead to blame Rice for pushing Bush into invading Iraq.

How does anyone read the NRO with a straight face?

It shows the "myth" behind complains about the news being too liberal was the real "hit job." The truth about the Bush administration is something partisan pundits can't handle so they just make outlandish shit up.

gee why does Richard and the gang hate America

One would thinks that Elliot Abrams would have disqualified himself from any further involvement with our foreign policy after he made a mess of US Central American affairs during the Reagan years. Why do these dim bulbs keeping getting second chances?

One would thinks that Elliot Abrams would have disqualified himself from any further involvement with our foreign policy after he made a mess of US Central American affairs during the Reagan years. Why do these dim bulbs keeping getting second chances?

Failure is what constitutes success for these people.

Reporters can't get interviews unless they kiss the subject's ass. So Vanity Fair failed to ask Perle the tough questions.

I remember Perle going on Meet the Press prior to the Iraq invasion and telling us that Hussein was a threat. I remember Tim Russert noting that three Democratic Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees has said that they had seen no signs that Hussein was an imminent threat. And I remember Perle responding that those three people had not "seen all of the intelligence". Odd --since Intelligence Oversight Committee members have access to everything. Note that Vanity Fair didn't ask Perle where were the WMDs of which Perle Spoke.

The comments here fail to recognize the true price of Richard Perle's deceit: 2700+ mothers who have buried their sons. Thousands more who have sons who will be crippled for life. Plus all the human misery and poverty that could have been helped by the hundreds of $billions that were pissed awayed in Iraq.

If one of those parents picked up a deer rifle and blew Richard Perle's brains out, I would not convict that parent if I was on the jury. Oh--I forgot. American citizens no longer have a right to trial by jury, do they?

q wrote

It's too bad it's next to impossible to have an honest discussion, on the left, of when intervention is appropriate.

Also, discussion with today's conservative (yesterday's ultraconservatives) is futile. The discussion is filled with guile. Things like the clear skies initiative and 'no-torture' interrogations techniques are the rule.

"I had no responsibility for that."

The nomination of Bush was the signal that the practice or concept of responsibility was meaningless to the Republican party. Spoiled, rotten, self-centered baby.
Too bad for the rest of us.

Kevin writes: What's more, despite their conveniently-timed hand wringing about incompetent execution, there's little evidence that the apologists would have done anything very different — in fact, little evidence that they cared very much about anything beyond "bringing down Saddam."

Kevin, if what you write is true, I believe you bolster the validity of the neocons' excuses. After all, bringing down Saddam wasn't itself problematic. It was accomplished competently, and was a goal that was in keeping with US advantages (military power). Moreover, there was at least an arguable case, both from a geopolitical/legal standpoint (numerous violations of the '90-'91 UN resolutions, failure to fully cooperate with the inspections regime, the regime's previous, well-documented attempt to acquire WMD, its penchant for making war on its neighbors, etc.) and a moral one (Saddam's habit of committing mass murder), for using force to eject Saddam from power.

The problem has been in the quixotic, bungled, and probably doomed effort at nation building. Colin Powell is looking wiser and wiser by the minute. The US should have resisted the temptation to make Iraq safe for democracy via an extended and large scale occupation, and instead confined its role mainly to financial assistance. We should have handed over the keys to the Iraqis and begun withdrawing promptly -- within, say, 90 days of Saddam's downfall. I believe that you, Kevin, have expressed the opinion that the presence of US forces exacerbates the situation in Iraq. And I believe you're likely correct.

Still, it's a shame a credible case can be made that Iraq is worse off for Saddam Hussein's removal from office. It needn't have turned out this way. Maybe if the administration had been more strongly guided by neoconservative principles, it wouldn't have.

" Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

And what happens if, instead, that crappy little gives us a swift kick in the nuts, rendering us nearly incapable of fighting anymore?

The greatest and long term damage that the neocons have done is that their little exercise in "shock and awe" use of power, and the psychology thereof, has been exactly turned on its head. After Iraq, which of our enemies has fear in its heart that we might ever succeed in overpowering it?

Neocons saw the use of force as a great moral and psychological lesson to the world in the irresistible power of the United States. They have, instead, so bungled things that they have demonstrated, in the middle of the road at noontime, the exact opposite.

also like the Trots -- "permanent revision"

Somebody needed to point out the neocons' lack of clothes. Thanks for doint the job.

Jasper: Maybe if the administration had been more strongly guided by neoconservative principles, it wouldn't have.

I disagree strongly. The same line is used by those who continue to defend Communism: failure was due to flaws in execution and individuals, not the concept.

Concept is nothing without execution; they cannot be divorced. Concepts are easy, execution is hard. These rationalizations from the neocon's are nothing more than excuses for failing at what counts. And they have failed in exactly the same way they accuse woolly-headed liberals of failing.

The neocon's have so far done nothing more than any other of histories' failed utopians. Perle, Wolfowitz, et. al. belong in the same dustbin with the rest of them. Truly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Democrat screwups just get some money spent poorly INSIDE the USA. Dispersed without good feedback among Americans who probably needed it. Waste with heart and actually a trickle down of appropriate immediacy.
Republican screwups channel money that never comes back. Republican trickle down is trickle on. Name me a factory with new American jobs of decent middle-class, made with those damn tax cuts. Republican screwups are huge messes, since it is usually a terrible idea applied poorly. There is no ZERO-SUM where one side wins when the other loses with Republican ideas, they pull off lose/lose as a matter of course.
The damage of failure is much, MUCH higher with Republicans. Look at the deficit, the immigrant solutions, the medicare, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, on and on.

No mea culpa would be a more fitting by line than Neo culpa. Just a shrug from most of these Iraqi war advocates. 'Politics is the art of the possible' as Kennedy once said..It is pity they didn't recognize this simple truism before now.

has407: "Concept is nothing without execution; they cannot be divorced. Concepts are easy, execution is hard."

I just want to second has407's excellent point. The execution of the concept IS the concept.

I will join good company and third the motion.

has407 has it right.

I spent three hours working for Claire this afternoon, Ron. If South Plaza to Brookside is a good indicator, we are looking good, and Amendment 2 is polling well too. Finally, it's a good day to be a Democrat in KC.

GOTV!!!

Yeah, they don't mention Cheney much. Interesting that Cheney was very much involved in persuading Bush pere not to push forward into Iraq and overthrow Saddam. What happened to him during the interregnum?

To paraphrase Trudeau: but this war had such promise.

I will say The War did not,nor is not going as planned.How could anyone seriously say YOU could see into the future?You could plan to the finite the outcome?How do you plan to herd Cats?How do you plan to set up a Democracy when most or at least %65 of the people have lived under a Tyrant their whole Life? How do you deal with Tribes that hate each other?Religious leaders who DO NOT CARE FOR ANY,ANY HUMAN LIFE?It seems a Liberal cause to Free the Helpless, stop Insanity,especially when it will help your own People.EVERYBODY including Clinton,Kerry(the joker)the U.N. Everybody! said Sadam had WMDs.It was the Democratic Controlled Senate that said Sadam 'must be contained or removed from power".It was Clintons stated policy to Remove him.If you say otherwise you are being intentional in being Dishonest.Tell me WHAT IF WHAT IF Kerry was The President what would be Different? He wouldnt defend the Country? SURE HE WOULD OR HE WOULD OF BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE. Would he of let the U.N. done it for us?NO NO NO NOT! When? after resolution No. 112,321 was passed?I think the dirty little secret thats really bothering Liberals is..what if Bush,The Dumbest man in America,pulls this off? How stupid are we going to look?EGG ON FACE FOREVER???

The picture of Cheney that goes along with that article is chilling. It looks like Mr Magoo crossed with Laurence Olivier's Nazi Szell from the movie "Marathon Man".

great post. one of your very best.

Compare and contrast the naive idealism of the 1960s antiwar crowd with that of the contemporary neocons.

That's easy: the 1960s antiwar types were kids, who said "Don't trust anyone over 30" because they were much younger than that. One would hope for a little bit of naive idealism from kids, but one would expect the naivete to wear off over the years.

The neocons of the PNAC/Bush era were most certainly not kids. But they were equally naive. What's their excuse?

人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 美女裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 写真集 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价