the irony, the irony , the irony
I love that a man who’s caught divulging classified secrutiy information to foreign country, and who has had more conflict of interest “investigations” over the decades , (as well as just this year), than you can shake a stick at still has a high horse.
Perle
I don’t know what is scarier, Simon, the fact that Perle exists or the fact that so few of us know it.
Our limey cousins across the Big Damp Spot (the place that used to be Great Britain…) have a phrase that fits perfectly: barking mad.
I can’t shake the idea that Perle arrived home early of a Saturday, some years back, after an night of fearsome experimentation with exotic organic alkoloids…
plopped down in from the TV, and accidentally tuned to Pinky and the Brain…
You see, he is a little white lab mouse, bent on world domination…
Think of the time frame.
Perle was violating oaths by passing classified info to an agent of foreign nation in the seventies.
This Admin has some funny ideas about national security.
Funny, when I saw Prince of Darkness my immediate thought was that it was about Rumsfeld. It’s hard to keep track of them all.
I can see why you’d think that.
However, Perle had the moniker first. He was also nicknamed Darth Vader. But, Darth Vader “Calls for an End to All Evil, and Maybe France,” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
I forgot to remember that not everyone’s familiar w/ Perle’s nickname.
Perle’s nickname dates back to the 80’s:
Well, whaddaya know? I would have sworn they called him the Prince of Darkness because he embodied all that is evil and negative! Who knew it was due to a policy position?!
Maybe one was thought to be indicative of the other.
Hmm… a powerful businessman/gov. uppity-up/suspected traitor is leading a shadowy cabal with a manifesto calling for world domination. Wasn’t this the plot of most James Bond movies?
He doesn’t have a ray or a beam or a scary submarine, does he?
Howabout a slutty besequined henchwoman with a suggestive name?
Regime change in Iran and Syria? A blockade of North Korea?
Let me know when he has a bad idea…These sound reasonable to us realists.
JMO, no way I’m wrong…Runinout
This must be some strange use of the word “realist” that I’m unfamiliar with.
The military is stretched very thin, yet you think it’s realistic to add three more warfronts.
Odd, odd, odd sort of realism.
The realists and pragmatists I’m familiar with prefer a wealth of data, estimates and other sorts of involved planning as to the potential consequences, side effects, cost benefit analyses and most importantly, a compelling national interest before giving an ok to major, military, foreign policy ventures. Realistically, most all of our combat troops are already tied up and the Congress is looking into whether or not the recent total troop level increases, (due to prevention of retirements etc from the military), are even legal.
Generally, the terms realist is applied to the likes of Colin Powell et al not members of the neo-con cabal.
You just have an unusual definition of “realist” I suppose.
Here, why don’t you try the Christian Science Monitor’s Neo-Con Quiz.
Sounds scary. Do we have a link to the Manifesto?
Yah,sure, youbetcha!
Scylla,
AFAICT, it’s just in book form now.
But here’re these
[Googling[/ur]
[url=http://www.aei.org/include/printThis.asp?pageID=82§ionID=7]AEI 1](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+"manual+for+victory"++Richard+Perle+&btnG=Google+Search)
AEI 2
Depending on content, this info point from the books ad could be scary:
how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory–not just stalemate
I’m not sure of how much importance Perle’s potential personal gains, should increased warfare become a reality, play in his decision to advocate more war. He’s already been caught doing and trying to do things that jeopardize the USA’s national security because they would benefit him personally.
I am going to check the local libraries in a moment.
You don’t want to know where my head is at right now; I took the quiz (“Liberal”) and I expected there to be a little window to say, “Copy this code to your LiveJournal…”
Actually, they are all cards. That is, unless you run with “Hitler’s Henchmen” theory that’s all the rage with the kids right now. Goebells = Tenent? Eh, Tenent couldn’t hold Goebell’s jock strap. Rummy = Goering? Maybe that tall AF general that stands next to him? Nah. His USAF really is capable of destroying Great Britan, but he’d never brag about it, or try.
SimonX:
Thank you for the link. I will have to buy that book and let you know what I think.
I have to confess though, that I’m not seeing the horrible evil yet, but then, I don’t know very much about Perle.
As an aside and a serious question: Is this the kind of thing that all rational people are going to find appalling, or do you think it falls into pretty normal left/right bickering?
First off, I haven’t read the book, yet. So everything that I have to say about it is based on incomplete info; however…
Some of what can be found objectionable is based on how you view the role of the USA in the world.
Isolationists and others will be concerned over the call for increased use of military force throughout the world, especially when the major benefits to the US consist merely of staving off non-imminent, potential threats, (rather than imminent threats).
Realists will be alarmed at the dramatic shift not only in foreign policy, but in the domestic structure necessary to support a series of extended campaigns similar to Iraq. I mean, in some ways, Iraq’s as big of a project as the reconstruction of Western Europe post WWII. For two more of these ventures to run concurrently with the two we have running now will require a massive restructuring and build-up in the military & military spending, (which of course, line Perle’s pockets), as well as the necessary domestic changes to support the massive new found militaristic foreign policy.
Those who’re familiar with Perle and his numerous, corporate conflicts of interest will hold suspect his calls for the US gov to spend even more massive amounts of money, (for years to come), with companies that benefit Perle.
There’re a number of reasons for “rational people” to be wary of the policies potentially outlined in the “manual for victory.” IMHO, “all rational people” should find these things apalling.
Just in a gaming sense of what’s going on, it seems to run counter to the US’s interests. An immense of unecessary expense, (liberties, money, and lives), at high risk with a only a dubious potential return.
The way the policy is sold in the liner notes gives me a sort of sick feeling in my stomach:
" the toughest line is the safest line;"
“We do not believe that Americans are fighting this evil to minimize it or manage it. We believe they are fighting to win–to end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory.”
–David Frum and Richard Perle, from An End to Evil
Isn’t terrorism on a genocidal scale sort of an oxymoron? And the whole, “It is victory or holocaust,” thing strikes me as a somehwat fanciful analysis. Granted that the several thousands of Western victims of Islamist terrorist acts throughout the recent decades are nothing to be trivialized, however comparing these to holocaust seems somewhat disingenuous.
But as anecdotal examples of the reaction to this book see these amazon comments
Here’re some of the more “rational” excerpts from reviews:
How many people do I think will actually read the book? Less than 2% of the US electorate.
Local libraries don’t have it yet. Or anything else by Perle oddly enough. I suspected that the library here @ the U would have at least something by Perle. They’ve got Buchanan out the ass