thedrifter
02-23-03, 10:39 AM
Insider Notes from the Pentagon
02-05-2003
Richard Perle and the Trouble with Goose-Stepping
Richard Perle is at it again. After laying low for several months, he emerges to "accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing ‘deep in his soul’ that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor" and to pronounce gravely that "France is no longer the ally it once was."
In addition to being a strategic genius, military hero, accomplished soufflé chef and all-powerful Chairman of the Defense Policy Board here in the 3rd Floor of the Pentagon – Richard Perle reads minds and knows exactly what Chirac believes deep in his soul.
I am seriously impressed. We should all be humbled by this great man.
Even more importantly, you can bet your plane ticket to the war zone that Perle’s view is shared by the Pentagon E-Ring, the Eliot Abram crowd at the NSC, and the White House.
While the professional military/civilian versus political appointee rift in the Pentagon is real, the constant river of public exclamations of Washington groupthink brings to mind images of a goose-stepping National Socialist parade. And we’re all in. Inspiring, isn’t it?
Don’t worry – the bloody, disastrous and Federal Reserve-breaking parts come after the parade, with the rest of the cleanup.
It is one thing for the United States to attack other countries or organizations, like al Qaeda, because they actually threaten our security and well being.
It is another to label anyone who questions the United States President (or Mr. Rumsfeld for that matter) as an enemy of the United States.
Now, Perle is just picking on France today. It is personal with him, and he must feel so terribly betrayed, as a well-known francophile who often enjoys the pleasures of Paris, French culture, and those wonderful soufflés.
But there are a host of commentators and government mouthpieces who are also targeting American citizens or groups that have asked inconvenient questions about the upcoming adventure in Iraq.
Take, for example, the accusations that the so-called "peace movement" in this country is funded by communists and Saddam Hussein himself. First of all, what peace movement? But suspend your disbelief for just a second, and read on.
The fact that one of the founders of the Christian Right, Paul Weyrich, is now calling for a congressional investigation into the funding sources for pro-peace activities in this country and elsewhere is revealing. Correction – Weyrich says it’s not really communists doing this…it’s neo-communists!
What the heck is a neo-communist? If the relationship between a conservative and a neo-conservative is any model for deciphering this modern day political dilemma – a neo-communist must be a pro-market classical liberal who values democracy and individualism. But I digress.
Know this: the activities planned for Iraq – to the extent that major annexes have yet to be written, even this late in the game – will come as a surprise to most Americans, particularly parents, spouses and siblings of soldiers. The expected liberation will not occur throughout Iraq evenly, if it occurs at all, and the secure and happy demarcation between them and us that we enjoy in Afghanistan hints at the nature of the upcoming Iraq occupation.
Perle and the neo-conservative alliance of talk show warriors, soldiers of the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal editorial pages, henchmen of the Christian Right and our own pro-Israel vanguard in the E-Ring are talking up the war. They are throwing homegrown bombs at those who ask wise and thoughtful questions about motive, objective, cost, day-after planning, and the ramifications of mistaken assumptions.
But just like in the X-Files, except scarier, the truth is out there.
Every major newspaper opinion page is increasingly giving a little column space to the "challengers" of the Dubya-knows-all-and-trust-him-blindly theorists. Why would they do that? Are they funded by neo-communists and on Saddam’s payroll? Not likely.
We are seeing serious questions about the wisdom and motive and end-state operations in the opinion pages of L.A. Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Washington Post and New York Times, -- even the Washington Times. Read them – each published in the last two days and thoughtful, patriotic, wise, putting America first.
What’s it all about?
Well, when you are goose-stepping with eyes right, you can’t see your ass but you know it’s vulnerable, especially in that famous fully extended position. You hope it’s covered, but you just can’t be sure.
So it has come to this – Perlotov cocktails slung wildly at anyone not fully invested in the George W. Bush pick-up game, and major media outlets starting to cover their backsides – just in case.
Sempers,
Roger
02-05-2003
Richard Perle and the Trouble with Goose-Stepping
Richard Perle is at it again. After laying low for several months, he emerges to "accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing ‘deep in his soul’ that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor" and to pronounce gravely that "France is no longer the ally it once was."
In addition to being a strategic genius, military hero, accomplished soufflé chef and all-powerful Chairman of the Defense Policy Board here in the 3rd Floor of the Pentagon – Richard Perle reads minds and knows exactly what Chirac believes deep in his soul.
I am seriously impressed. We should all be humbled by this great man.
Even more importantly, you can bet your plane ticket to the war zone that Perle’s view is shared by the Pentagon E-Ring, the Eliot Abram crowd at the NSC, and the White House.
While the professional military/civilian versus political appointee rift in the Pentagon is real, the constant river of public exclamations of Washington groupthink brings to mind images of a goose-stepping National Socialist parade. And we’re all in. Inspiring, isn’t it?
Don’t worry – the bloody, disastrous and Federal Reserve-breaking parts come after the parade, with the rest of the cleanup.
It is one thing for the United States to attack other countries or organizations, like al Qaeda, because they actually threaten our security and well being.
It is another to label anyone who questions the United States President (or Mr. Rumsfeld for that matter) as an enemy of the United States.
Now, Perle is just picking on France today. It is personal with him, and he must feel so terribly betrayed, as a well-known francophile who often enjoys the pleasures of Paris, French culture, and those wonderful soufflés.
But there are a host of commentators and government mouthpieces who are also targeting American citizens or groups that have asked inconvenient questions about the upcoming adventure in Iraq.
Take, for example, the accusations that the so-called "peace movement" in this country is funded by communists and Saddam Hussein himself. First of all, what peace movement? But suspend your disbelief for just a second, and read on.
The fact that one of the founders of the Christian Right, Paul Weyrich, is now calling for a congressional investigation into the funding sources for pro-peace activities in this country and elsewhere is revealing. Correction – Weyrich says it’s not really communists doing this…it’s neo-communists!
What the heck is a neo-communist? If the relationship between a conservative and a neo-conservative is any model for deciphering this modern day political dilemma – a neo-communist must be a pro-market classical liberal who values democracy and individualism. But I digress.
Know this: the activities planned for Iraq – to the extent that major annexes have yet to be written, even this late in the game – will come as a surprise to most Americans, particularly parents, spouses and siblings of soldiers. The expected liberation will not occur throughout Iraq evenly, if it occurs at all, and the secure and happy demarcation between them and us that we enjoy in Afghanistan hints at the nature of the upcoming Iraq occupation.
Perle and the neo-conservative alliance of talk show warriors, soldiers of the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal editorial pages, henchmen of the Christian Right and our own pro-Israel vanguard in the E-Ring are talking up the war. They are throwing homegrown bombs at those who ask wise and thoughtful questions about motive, objective, cost, day-after planning, and the ramifications of mistaken assumptions.
But just like in the X-Files, except scarier, the truth is out there.
Every major newspaper opinion page is increasingly giving a little column space to the "challengers" of the Dubya-knows-all-and-trust-him-blindly theorists. Why would they do that? Are they funded by neo-communists and on Saddam’s payroll? Not likely.
We are seeing serious questions about the wisdom and motive and end-state operations in the opinion pages of L.A. Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Washington Post and New York Times, -- even the Washington Times. Read them – each published in the last two days and thoughtful, patriotic, wise, putting America first.
What’s it all about?
Well, when you are goose-stepping with eyes right, you can’t see your ass but you know it’s vulnerable, especially in that famous fully extended position. You hope it’s covered, but you just can’t be sure.
So it has come to this – Perlotov cocktails slung wildly at anyone not fully invested in the George W. Bush pick-up game, and major media outlets starting to cover their backsides – just in case.
Sempers,
Roger