Saturday, November 04, 2006

And there's a legal limit to the snow here in Camelot

Like spoiled, petulant children, the Neo-con elites who pressed for war in Iraq are now complaining that GWBushCo didn't clap loud enough.

Idiots.

Here's "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle in Vanity Fair:
"The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

Disloyalty? WTF? Every single thing suggested by Perle/Rumsfeld/Cheney et al was done, yet now the complaint is that it wasn't enough?

And don't think that Perle's whining today means he's suddenly grasped reality:
'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

What? Saddam had WMDs, but maybe we should have tried diplomatic solutions? Ya think? Oh, and those WMDs, where might they now be? I mean, besides in paper form on the internets, thanks to Peter Hoekstra (R-Never never land).

And here's David (Axis of Weasel) Frum:
"the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush.

Um, sure. Because he did everyting your sad little mind prayed for, and yet, somehow, it just wasn't enough:

"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!"

Here's Ken Adelman, life-long Neo-con:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Woah, bub. Slow down. That's 3 guys on the cheerleading squad talking about "dysfunctional". But it's your team, guys. Merely spinning in a circle and pointing randomly outward at other members of the same club carries little weight. It's your club!

If any good news comes from this failed experiment in world changing, it might be this, also from Adelman:
Fearing that worse is still to come, Adelman believes that neoconservatism itself—what he defines as "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world"—is dead, at least for a generation. After Iraq, he says, "it's not going to sell."

We'll see. Zealots detached from reality have no incentive to change their thinking. They'll always want Daddy to buy them a pony.

From Perle again:
"Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

Right.

And Adelman on Rumsfeld:
I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don't know. He certainly fooled me."

Sorry, guys. Blame GWBush, blame Rumsfeld all you want. All they did was execute your fantasy. I'm sorry that didn't work out well for you. In the meantime, go away, shut up, slink off to the Heritage Foundation or the Projec For The New American Century and write some new position papers on binging democracy to, oh, I don't know, Iran? Or Syria? Hey, I know, Saudi Arabia.