Posted on 11/04/2006 5:10:15 PM PST by the Real fifi
Vanity Fair has come out with its usual election eve hit job. This time it selectively quotes leading neocons on their views respecting the war, editing their lengthy remarks to suggest dissatisfaction with the Administration and the war. Michael Rubin has already responded, ss has David Frum.
I read Richard Perle’s comments as an attack on the perfidy of some in the Administration, a topic I have written about more than once.
Richard Perle was traveling, and I was only just able to reach him to clarify his views, as I was certain the article was a total misrepresentation of them, and he has promptly responded. Here is what he told me.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I despise the MSM.
How many times do people like Perle have to get burned by the MSM before they learn not to talk them?
Here's an extract from chapter 6 of Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress":
Almost five thousand years agone, there were pilgrims walking to the Celestial City, as these two honest persons are: and Beelzebub, Apollyon, and Legion, with their companions, perceiving by the path that the pilgrims made, that their way to the city lay through this town of Vanity, they contrived here to set up a fair; a fair wherein, should be sold all sorts of vanity, and that it should last all the year long: therefore at this fair are all such merchandise sold, as houses, lands, trades, places, honours, preferments, titles, countries, kingdoms, lusts, pleasures, and delights of all sorts, as whores, bawds, wives, husbands, children, masters, servants, lives, blood, bodies, souls, silver, gold, pearls, precious stones, and what not.
And, moreover, at this fair there is at all times to be seen juggling cheats, games, plays, fools, apes, knaves, and rogues, and that of every kind.
Here are to be seen, too, and that for nothing, thefts, murders, adulteries, false swearers, and that of a blood-red colour.
May I repeat what he said?
I believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave Iraq, as some are demanding, before the Iraqis are able to defend their elected government. As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.
I told Mr. Rose that as a nation we had waited too long before dealing with Osama bin Laden. We could have destroyed his operation in Afghanistan before 9/11.
I believed we should not repeat that mistake with Saddam Hussein, that we could not responsibly ignore the threat that he might make weapons of mass destruction available to terrorists who would use them to kill Americans. I favored removing his regime. And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with Al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”
I believe the President is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path.
Is Tim Russert's wife still in charge over at VF ?
I'll guess yes.
bump
Two of the people quoted in VF article have come out against the piece. I was sorry to see Frank Gaffney and Michael Ledeen quoted in the piece.
Tape yourself saying anything for 3 or 4 hours. Give it to me, and with little effort I can also turn it into something you'd never recognize either.
I do not see him refuting the comments attributed to him with regard to Rumsfeld.
I believe the President is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path.
It is not going to be easy beating back the uncivilized barbarians who would kill us all in a heartbeat.
There is no one more qualified than Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and I pray for him daily.
You, know, you have a point. But I know they were misled into thinking it was a general think piece. Richard has an email from Rose promising this would not appear until December and, of course, none of them saw how there remarks had been edited and fiddled with.
Here's what Ledeen said:
[quote]The Latest Disinformation from Vanity Fair [Michael Ledeen]
My experience with Vanity Fair is even more extensive than David Frum 's, having been the subject of a 30,000 word screed that ends with the author's bland confession "there is no evidence for any of this." So I am not at all surprised to see the editors yank words from me, David, and others out of context and totally misdescribe what we think, do and feel. I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated—as I still do—support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters.
Readers of NRO know well how disappointed I have been with our failure to address Iran, which was, and remains, the central issue, and it has been particularly maddening to live through extended periods when our children were in battle zones where Iranian-supported terrorists were using Iranian-made weapons against Americans, Iraqis and Afghans. I have been expressing my discontent for more than three years. So much for a change of heart dictated by developments on the ground.
So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn't be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact-checker was involved in the latest "promotion." I actually wrote to David Rose, the author of the article-to-come, a person for whom I have considerable respect. He confirmed that words attributed to me in the promo had been taken out of context. [/quote]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQ0OTQyNTdhNWE0NzAxNGMxYWQ2ODAxOTNjNWM4M2E=
And you should look up the VF article on Ledeen that he refers to--utter moonbattery.
Yes, I read that in the Perle statement.
I wanted to say that he shouldn't have trusted VF in the first place, and simply refuse or at least delay the interview to a later date. The media cannot be trusted.
[update] Thanks for the Ledeen statement aswell.
Gaffney certainly will follow soon.
From Ledeen's comments and Perle's I get the idea that David Rose whom they knew and trusted was overruled by the editors. So, yes the answer is even if the reporter is someone you trust, you cannot trust the press--at least VF--to keep its word or to treat the interview with honesty.
Neocons like Perle won't learn until the neocons stop liking hearing themselves talk and speculate about how easy it is to civilize the middle east.
Mr. Ismay (owner of the White Star lines) pushed the Titanic's Captain Smith into reluctantly lighting the last two boilers and plunging full speed ahead into the ice field. Ismay made it into one of the lifeboats, and lived the rest of his life in seclusion. If Vanity fair had interviewed Mr. Ismay, he would have known better than to say one word that could be interpreted as criticism of Captain Smith. In 7 years when Iraq settles down, Perle will be taking credit for his wise advice to Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.