So Its The Women In The White House Who Are To Blame.....

[DeSwiss]

Isn't just amazing how without a smidgen of remorse nor acceptance of any responsibility, these vermin are now scrambling off of the ship of state they work so hard to clamber onto. I'm speaking of course of the prime Neocons, the subject of the new Vanity Fair article, who cheerlead, argued, lied and armtwisted everyone into accepting their view of the world and won. But then they didn't win.

WONKETTE: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/karen-hughes/the-real-news-in-vanity-fairs-neocon-confessions-212483.php">The Real News In Vanity Fair's Neocons Confessions



Yes, the “remorseful proponents” of the Iraq Invasion are finally aware of the Hell they've helped create — except for David Frum, who's been on talk radio all day whining about his quotes being “out of context” — but who are the Neocons really blaming for the atrocities?

They've all got different answers in the Vanity Fair excerpts, and one answer is both cryptic and hilarious:

Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute freedom scholar: “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.”

What? So they're just saying this out in the open now? Some 2,800 U.S. troops and 650,000 Iraqis have been killed because of a White House cat fight? Can we please have Laura Bush denying this to Wolf Blitzer, tomorrow? And get Condi on Imus or something? We don't really care about Miers and Hughes these days, as they no longer matter.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=2">Now They Tell Us -- (Vanity Fair Exclusive)

[JohnnyLib2]

1. Is he connected to the New Life Church fellers?

Same outlook, as I understand it.

[niyad]

2. what a load of codswallop

[Fridays Child]

3. This is amazing stuff. K/R

[gratuitous]

4. Not only are they liars and cheats

They're also gutless cowards. And yet, they still get all the prime interviews on the cable and the network shows, yakking away as if they had the first clue about the consequences of their insane policies and as if they had actually been right about anything.

Meanwhile, the people who have been right all along are totally shut out of the conversation in the major media, and yet the voters have without prompting and without honest reportage have drawn the conclusion all by themselves that this policy has been an unmitigated disaster.

[DeSwiss]

5. In addition to all the other inanities made by these chumps....

....in the Vanity Fair article, these are some other choice bits:

Richard Perle: (Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan) "In the administration that I served, there was a one-sentence description of the decision-making process when consensus could not be reached among disputatious departments: 'The president makes the decision.' (Bush) did not make decisions, in part because the machinery of government that he nominally ran was actually running him. The National Security Council was not serving (Bush) properly. He regarded (then National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice) as part of the family."

"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."

Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy: "(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."

Kenneth Adelman: "The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to (former C.I.A. director) George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and (Coalition Provisional Authority chief) Jerry (Paul) Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."

"The problem here is not a selling job. The problem is a performance job.… Rumsfeld has said that the war could never be lost in Iraq, it could only be lost in Washington. I don't think that's true at all. We're losing in Iraq.… I've worked with (Rumsfeld) three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas. 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."

David Frum: "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

Michael Rubin, former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer: "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves." By failing to match his rhetoric with action, Rubin adds, Bush has betrayed Iraqi reformers in a way that is "not much different from what his father did on February 15, 1991, when he called the Iraqi people to rise up, and then had second thoughts and didn't do anything once they did."

Eliot Cohen, director of the strategic-studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and member of the Defense Policy Board: "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. So in a real pinch, we can still pull ourselves together. Unfortunately, it will probably take another big hit. And a very different quality of leadership. Maybe we'll get it."

And one part of the article that I found most enjoyable was this by Ken Adelman:

Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "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."

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." And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked can't do. And that's very different from let's go."


We can only hope that neoconservatism IS dead now. All it lacks is cremation and then to bury the ashes and add a headstone marked with the words: "Here Lies The Stupidest Idea Ever Dreampt By Mankind"

[HuffleClaw]

6. of course they'd blame women

its their stock in trade. look at how they've been demonising pelosi.