Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Bloody sensational timing... :-(
1 posted on 11/03/2006 11:34:41 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Aussie Dasher

Which sunday morning shows are these jokers going to be on?


2 posted on 11/03/2006 11:36:25 PM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

Bloody tiring is more like it. :(


4 posted on 11/03/2006 11:40:12 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
Neo Culpa (Perle and Adleman on Iraq)
5 posted on 11/03/2006 11:41:37 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
The article read that Perle "had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein..."

Analytical, think-tank guys like Perle think and live in abstractions, I would imagine, sort of like a sanitized chessboard world with pieces made of snowflake-delicate crystal. Unfortunately for guys like Perle, war is a messy, complicated business even when the outcome is never in doubt. War is blood and death and fire. It takes nerve to stare in the face of this particular beast, and what we are seeing now is a failure of nerve on the part of many of the players and decision-makers. No new news here. President Lincoln, for example, was surrounded at times by defeatists and second-guessers and second-raters. The only reassuring aspect to the whole article is that Perle is a former staffer. War has a way of winnowing out the weak among the leadership. Consider him winnowed.
7 posted on 11/03/2006 11:54:48 PM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
Adelman also said that neoconservatism, "the idea of using our power for moral good in the world," has been discredited with the public. After Iraq, he told Vanity Fair, "it's not going to sell."

Rats jumping off a sinking ship, so much for loyalty. Somebody should tell these "neoconservatives" that nation building never was a tenet of what constitutes conservative foreign policy, and it wasn't just the implementation that was flawed, but the policy itself. I wonder which one of these idiots thought forcing democracy upon a bunch of culturally backward and volatile Islamic societies was such a bright idea? Critisizing the administration now for their implementing the very policies they were clamoring for before shows a total lack of integrity and character, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their misguided vision they were vigorously promoting. Richard Perle can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

8 posted on 11/04/2006 12:05:02 AM PST by yuta250
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
From DUmmyland yesterday about NYT/Iraq Nuclear:

This is the handiwork of the PNAC'ers, Office of Special Plans and stovepipers, with GOP accomplices in Congress.
11 posted on 11/04/2006 1:08:21 AM PST by John Lenin ( Mr. Stoller concludes that "Democratic Senators are moral lepers, and weaklings")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
Neoconservatism is not a crime.
19 posted on 11/04/2006 3:31:32 AM PST by Pro-Bush (hater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

The neo-cons tick me off. It was their unrealistic expectations of the Iraqi people's ability to actually behave like westerners that gave us irrational expectations that this would be easy. All the cakewalk crap, and now that they were proven wrong, and it is a difficult mission they are blaming the President for their bad prognostications.

What little punks.


21 posted on 11/04/2006 3:57:23 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

Although we carried out a brilliant campaign to "conquer Iraq" and capture Saddam, our followup does appear to be lacking. Are we using our technology to ensure minimal casualties? That is, we seem to have multiple layers of complex rules of engagement where we punish our own to the delight of the enemy (Pendleton 8 & others); we do not seem to be using our technology to minimize our own casualities (MOAB, failure to bomb certain buildings being used for weapons storage, and places for the enemy to hide), reconnoiter policies, interrogation policies, etc. Are we too quick to arrest our own military for doing their job too well (thanks to Murtha an his ilk).


22 posted on 11/04/2006 5:05:59 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
scum sucking bottom feeders comes to mind.

traitors and opportunists is probably a more accurate statement.

24 posted on 11/04/2006 5:18:13 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher
Richard Perle...said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

Well, goooooolly, ain't he smart? Yeah, and if I knew last weeks winning lottery numbers before they were picked I'd be rich too. So what?

I don't remember a single pundit who said, "Yeah, defeating Saddamm's military will be relatively easy, but terrorists will start blowing up people in the streets and it'll be hard to kill them down, especially when the MSM will be rooting for the terrorists to win."

25 posted on 11/04/2006 5:21:03 AM PST by libertylover (If it's good and decent, you can be sure the Democrat Party leaders are against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

Dasher, let me put my reaction to what these two did in terms any MP in the Commonwealth would understand immediately:

Shame. Shame. Shame.


30 posted on 11/04/2006 6:29:05 AM PST by RichInOC ("Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live...at least for a while.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

I believe this is a quote from one of the guys in the article:

"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. Who doesn’t constantly question and reassess? Vanity Fair’s agenda was a pre-election hit job, and I guess some of us quoted are at fault for believing too much in integrity."


31 posted on 11/04/2006 7:16:56 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I'm agnostic on evolution, but sit ups are from Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

There never were more than three Neocons.


34 posted on 11/04/2006 9:45:50 AM PST by RightWhale (RTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

Already debunked as a lie by subsequent post.


36 posted on 11/04/2006 11:11:28 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

These are the same people we are listening to scream about IRAN...?!


38 posted on 11/04/2006 11:59:16 AM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Aussie Dasher

There is some news out ther somewhere that this ain't so true


42 posted on 11/04/2006 3:08:35 PM PST by dforest (be careful you don't become what you hate the most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson