What really cracks me up is that Perle is known to vacation in France.
** Elucidator ** Hey what’s with the used to be Great Britain.
We still are ol’ pal, the “Great” refers to the Union of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and not as many people think because we had an E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S empire on which the sun never set.
We also used to rule you Yanks until you got upset about the price of tea 
Any more of it and we burn the White House again…OK?
So because France didn’t jump on board for the war these wankers are calling them possible enemies?
France a member of NATO, an ally in Gulf 1 and Afghanistan. Treating France like an enemy would be silly to the extreme. It could have implications with business between the US and the EU.
Then again what should I expect from Perle and his neocon buddies.
I know a bunch of badly informed canucks that would like to keep that bit. Do you mind? It’ll make my life easier.
If Perle weren’t one of the Vulcans with a grip on the PotUS’s ear this sortof shit’d be humorous.
Any more shit out of you and we raise your rent.
Perle said that we need to be able to strike first if an enemy initiates a war.
Three words: doublethink
Oh this is rich:
Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?
Good advice! From now on when someone tells me I hate America because I didn’t support the Iraq war because no compelling evidence was presented that Iraq was a threat to the United States and it turned out that the weapons of mass destruction existed only in the heads of imperialst fuckers like Perle and Frum, I’ll just say “You’re completely mistaken; that grievance comes out of a completely wrong way of looking at the world, and you’re just going to have to get over it.”
If the Foreign Minister of France is any indication, some Frenchies would be very disappointed if we did not consider them an enemy. They try as hard as they can.
This reductio ad absurdum to the entire Iraq war being predicated on finding stockpiles of WMDs would be funny if people were not so serious.
WMDs were trotted in front of the UN for international support. Per leftist thought, the war was actually planned for other reasons years before that. Get your stories straight, people!
Beagle, you’re completely mistaken; that grievance comes out of a completely wrong way of looking at the world, and you’re just going to have to get over it.
Also, 10 yard penalty and a down for gratuitous use of Latin.
Since we’re not the UN’s lapdog nor the policeman of the world, our interest in the Iraq invasion was prediacted on the idea of a threat to the US from Iraq. The threat to the US from Iraq was predicated on Iraq’s transfer of banned weapons to international terrorists for use against the US. The Bush Amdin said, on more than one occasion, that there was certainty that these banned weapons and banned weaons programs existed. Since the intel agencies said that an attack on the US from Iraq was unlikely in the forseeable future, what was left was the possibility that the American intel assessment was wrong and that these banned weapons might be used anyway. If the weapons aren’t found, (I think they will be found), then there’s no likelihood of an attack and nothing to attack with. Thus the only remaining justification for invasion would the violation of UNSC resolutions. That, is the UNSC’s problem, not the US’s.
It seems you’re trying to imply a contradiction heresomewhere. It didn’t work.
Here’s some Liberal’s book review:
Some pretty fair points, (for a Liberal 
).