Sunday, November 5, 2006

The Blame Game, NeoCon Style -- As Pathetic As It Gets

David Rose's new piece at Vanity Fair contains excerpts from interviews with people Rose has the audacity to call "some of the most respected voices among the neoconservative elite". How or why these feckless demented war criminals qualify as "respected voices" is a question Rose doesn't answer.

But then Rose himself is in a most difficult position. It's clear that he was one of the people who were taken in by their outrageous lies. And perhaps that's why he now seems to be making excuses for them.

David Rose:
I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East.
Is it possible that he still doesn't realize what was clear to all sentient human beings even before the invasion -- that the story about "spreading democracy in the Middle East" was merely a cynical line of crap?

Or worse -- that the so-called "democracy" they were trying to spread was merely a euphemism for unbridled laissez-faire capitalism?

In other words, they were trying to establish in Iraq an economic system under which the Iraqis could have the residue of America's depleted uranium munitions, while the genocidal maniacs who invaded the country could have the oil.
Their dismay extends beyond the tactical issues of whether America did right or wrong, to the underlying question of whether exporting democracy is something America knows how to do.
No mention of whether "exporting democracy" is the right thing to do. No mention of whether "exporting democracy" is even possible. Not even a hint of a question about what these monsters actually mean when they say the word "democracy". And -- of course -- no mention of what has been done to the former democracy that used to exist on the home front. Just spin upon spin upon spin, disguised as a series of confessions from the people Rose calls "the war's remorseful proponents".

Try as I might, I cannot find a single iota of remorse in any of the remarks quoted here. It's truly a disgusting read.

As far as I can tell, not a single one of these so-called "idealists" has even begun to face the fact that their "idealistic" plan was not only wicked and evil -- as is any plan involving the invasion, destruction and occupation of a defenseless country -- but also doomed from the very beginning. Instead they take potshots at the so-called president and his so-called secretary of defense (both of whom deserve the criticism, to be sure) while pretending that if somehow the war had been run better, it might have accomplished something worthwhile.

How pathetic, these idiots-in-denial. They should all be dangling from the ceilings of cold little cells at Gitmo, savoring their memories of lemon chicken and a choice of dessert, while having their legs shattered by repeated blows from Muslim thugs swinging baseball bats. Turnabout is fair play, after all. But instead they are free ... and spinning their endless spin.

Richard Perle:
"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…"
David 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.
Michael Ledeen:
"Ask yourself who the most powerful people in the White House are. They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes."
Frank Gaffney:
"[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity."
Michael Rubin:
"Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him…"
Kenneth Adelman:
"The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless."
Perle again:
"Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives…
Eliot Cohen:
"I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up drifting toward is some sort of withdrawal on some sort of timetable and leaving the place in a pretty ghastly mess.… I do think it's going to end up encouraging various strands of Islamism, both Shia and Sunni, and probably will bring de-stabilization of some regimes of a more traditional kind, which already have their problems.… The best news is that the United States remains a healthy, vibrant, vigorous society.…"
These vicious hypocrites should all be so ashamed of themselves that they would never again dare to show their evil faces in public.

Who? All of them: Gaffney, Frum, Perle, Cohen, Adelman, Rubin, Ledeen; every single one of them, as well as some others, who apparently didn't confide in David Rose: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Dumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, and many more.

And David Rose too, if he can't find anything better to do than to speak of these grotesque animals using terms like "respect".

Grab a couple of barf bags and read Neo Culpa. And try not to spill any on the floor -- this will be good practice for Rose's next article, due in December.