I remember the words of Joseph Welch, an attorney appearing for a client at the HUAC hearings. Said to Joseph McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Would that those words would resound for all who are responsible for the tragedy of Iraq and now feign innocence

God Bless You Larry, I coudn't have said it better myself! There will be a special place in Hell reserved for traitors like those connected with the Project for the New American Century...where oh where is Greg Palast when we need him?!

Did you see that Michael Ladeen who was if anything more strident for going to war in Iraq now says he was not in favor of it?

My question for the neo-Cons is when Rumsfeld was slicing the number of soldiers that were going to be used in Iraq where were you? If Iraq was so important why were you not with Powell, Zinni and virtually all those at the top of the military who favored the Powell Doctrine for use in Iraq as opposed to going in as light as possible?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And you Richard Perle waited to say this until a writer found you?

You Richard Perle are a thinker who takes no responsibility. You say that the implementers have failed and then you move on. Thinkers have the luxury of disowning the consequences. You just move on to more words.

I abhor what the Administration has done but you are worse. You fathered the child but now refuse to participate in raising the child because you don't like how the child turned out. So much for family values.

To call Perle a pig is an insult to sweet, peaceful animals (if a little dirty at times).

No, Perle is just a giant stinking asshole. And a coward to boot.

Not enough profanity in my opinion. The Iraq War on its own is enough to warrant a liberal use of the f-bomb, and when a key architect lies about his role, well, no amount of f-bombing is sufficient.

But though I'd love jump on the dogpile and give Perle the kicking he deserves, I'll try to present a different perspective.

The Neocon movement has hived into two distinct pieces - the real bitter-as-f*ck chickenhawks like Perle, Kristol and Ledeen (strongly recommend you find Glenn Greenwald's annihilation of Ledeen's "I was against the Iraq War" bullcrap.); and the more remorseful pointy-headed Neocons like Fukuyama.

The big difference between the two groups is that the former were (and in some cases, still are) very close to the Bush administration. The latter were not. The former were a part of the policy ideas and execution. The latter were not. And I think the effect is that the likes Fukuyama can take a more objective view of how (badly) things have gone wrong, whilst the likes of Perle are investing their efforts in trying to explain why they are not responsible for the mess.

Because, deep down, Perle and friends know they own the mess. Yes, the Decider ultimately put his name to this monumental disaster, but it was a bill of goods presented to him AND implemented by Perle and his bagmen in Rummy and Cheney's offices. Perle is trying to put it all on Bush's shoulders, and much as I detest Bush and everything he represents, I'd fully support a decision to accidentally shoot Perle in the face.

Couple of other points - big reason why Perle is trying to shore up his credibility... Iran is still on the radar. Shock and Awe 2.0 is his longer term objective, and if he can stick Iraq's problems on a lame-duck president, at least his (obscene) Neocon philosophy might not die.

And lastly, can't help but notice that we have more Neocon predictions about what's going to happen next in the Middle East. 50 bucks says that yet again, they will be completely wrong.

Before I delved into the article, I was wonder what could possibly get Larry Johnson so pissed off at this late date.

Apparently, no one has told any of these people that they'd be better off apologizing for their own mistakes. I guess it must take a Liberal to know that when you give a heartfelt apology you get an opportunity to salvage a shred of credibility.

No, I'm afraid that these people are now getting that History is about to stamp "Asshole" over their faces. Now they're scrambling to point the finger of blame elsewhere. Too bad 650,000 Iraqis and 30,000+ US casualties got dragged into it. Way worse than too bad, really. Criminal? Worth looking into...

And guess what folks? The way people outside of the US see it, none of us come off as being substantially better than these NeoCons.

I wonder if the reputation of this country will be rehabilitated in my lifetime.

-Dave Adams-

When this Administration leaves office will any amount of rehabilitation start on its own or will a new Administration have to prove with actions that they are different to even start the rehab?

I have to hope there is at least a small reservoir of positive feeling, a starting point. But you Dave may be more realistic than I am. 

Right on. People in America need to realize that it isn't just the neocons that look like assholes, it's all of us. We elected these people.

On the other hand I would like to see more progress on getting this whole digital voting thing fixed. There needs to be transparency.

All software that runs on a voting machine should be open source and available for everyone to scrutinize. It's ridiculous to believe that every solution to every problem can be solved by corporations and the free market.

An election system that's quality and security rests in the hands of corporations seems absurd.

A corporation's number one priority is to make money. Couple this with the fact that writing quality software is not easy, it's not beyond reason to think that there is probably a reason to worry. Not necessarily that there's a conspiracy to give the election to one party or another, what we should be concerned about is whether the software is actually functioning properly and is secure.

The only reasonable solution is to require all voting software be open source. Companies could still make money on installations and maintance. There are other ways to make money with software other than charging directly for a licence. The free market can still function, even with open source software.

I always come back to the idea that nothing about Iraq involves anything other than money.  You may be right that Perle had his eggs in Chalabi's basket.  Possibly the only one who did not base his actions solely on money, where Iraq is involved, is Bush himself.  That man is so simple that it would be very easy to sell him a bill of goods about invading Iraq - he may actually believe what  he says, as impossible as that sounds. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I always thought the decision to go into Iraq with a small troop force was just a necessary rationalization for the decision to do "shock and awe" bombing, which in turn was driven by the need for mass structural destruction to create a huge funnel to empty "restoration" billions from the public coffers into the pockets of the administration's corporate sponsors.

What if a $10 billion war really could have been competently planned and managed, as was argued - not too convincingly - on another thread? Would it have been worth the effort to the war profiteers? I think Hoppycalif2 is right - it was always all about the money, and from that perspective it's been obscenely successful.

What appealed to Rove was the prospect of a bottomless slush fund - kickbacks from war contractors that could fund his drive to a 1-party state.

hoppy,

That is one point that I keep wrestling with. I hate to think of Bush with some sort of compassion, but that is what is called for if he is as simple as you say. But then I picture that sociopath's grin and come back to the idea that he is simply evil.

And then I think that it may not be money that motivates that son of a bitch but something far more insidious.

Depends on whose reservoir.

Abroad, it's likely that people look at Americans as Americans. Bush was after all re-elected at a point when he for years had executed exactly the same language and policies as he continued.
And, what's more important, the oppositioin against his policies can't be perceived as anything but weak and unarticulated.

Americans may think in terms of election cycles and administrations, but that is unlikely at other places. The U.S. now has made an imprint that will last until it gets overshadowed by something more important.

It may sound arrogant, but I do not think even informed Americans have much of an idea of what foreigners think of the nation, particular not the non-elites abroad. Nor that they are interested, more than in the most general way. To me, that's emblematic.

It may sound arrogant, but I do not think even informed Americans have much of an idea of what foreigners think of the nation, particular not the non-elites abroad. Nor that they are interested, more than in the most general way. To me, that's emblematic.

I will say first that I love my country even though I sometimes hate what my own government does in my name. Specifically I hate the torture, the illegal invasion, the spying on citizens, the exploitation of foreign poor, the neglect of our own poor, and the neglect of our commons.

What I love about my country, unfortunately, is mostly its history: that here we were the first to build a great nation with a representative government, that here was the place where immigrants from all over the world had to learn to live together, that this country was a key bulwark against fascism.

I am so angry now becase I feel as if my country as been taken from me. Worse, its been taken from my children and likely from any children they may have.

In this country corporations sometimes track a quantity they refer to as "good will" on their balance sheets. In other words, while it may sound a bit crass, having a good reputation among certain groups, be they employees, stockholders, or the public, is considered a form of wealth. One has to wonder how much of the collective American "Good Will" has been squandered over the last six years and what it will cost to regain it.

It aint gonna be cheap...

-Dave Adams-

Excellent using the accounting "good will" to describe a nontangible US asset that has been severly decreased.

I'm with you and Hoppy on the idea that Bush believes in the "cause" he advocates. I'm reminded of some reading I did back in the Iran/Contra era of José Comblin's writings on the National Security State ideology, which Comblin called a "quasi-ideology". People like Eliot Abrams really believed that the commies were everywhere, intent on destroying the USA. Well, there was some vague truth to that, but then also the NSS ideology justified anything and everything to prevent this, including building totalitarian states around the world.

During the 2000 campaign this one chilled me:

"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were," he said. "It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."—[Bush] Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000 [link (scroll way down the page) ]

It's interesting that he hadn't discovered who "they" were yet.

Neoboho

"Sensing how intensely American leaders want to lead the world, I wonder if maybe leadership on the issue of Climat Change is what could be a constructive approach."

That would be a good start; so would an honest attempt to accurately count the casualties in Iraq.

-Dave Adams-