Steve, you were one of the few who were arguing all along that the neocons were not out of the race, even after things in Iraq began to come undone badly. I wish I didn't have to point out your prescience and good insights because we all would have been better off had you gotten this wrong. congrats, regrettably, d.

I know I shouldn't feel this way as I watch the craziest wing of the administration power structure seizing ever more power, but I'm laughing. If the neocons could deliver the Iraq invasion with much less influence, what do they do for an encore?

Yeah, this means my chances of being blown up some day just went up slightly, but as I neither live in nor visit the Gulf, Taiwan or North Korea, I get to play the jaded fatalist.

Bush is undisputably a War Criminal for having led our nation into an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war under false pretenses. Who else bears responsibility in this administration for these war crimes, and who among the neo-cons bears enough responsibly to be tried as war criminals?

Bush for his part would necessarily get a death sentence commuted to life in prison (by Nuremburg standards he would be hung, but I suspect nowadays hanging is regrettably beyond the pale for this monster). As for others, lesser sentences would be expected especially when one considers the scramble to turn state's evidence and the finger pointing begins. But as for the neo-cons that bear responsibility do you think a 10 year sentence would be proper considering that they were, for the most part, only the intellegentsia amongst the War Criminals that infest our government?

Neocon Pletka to State NEA. While I am still betting (and hoping) that this won't happen, Washington trivia collectors might be interested to note that this appointment would be the second slot on America's Near East policy team for a conservative Jewish foreign policy activist from Australia (although unlike fellow Australian Martin Indyk, Danielle won't need an act of Congress to make her an American citizen before her appointment can be effective. She's already made the switch). One wonders if, perhaps, AIPAC has a talent-spotting office in Melbourne.
JohnStuart

You should check out Abu Aardvark's dossier on Ms. Pletka: http://tinyurl.com/4yhgx

>I admit to being haunted by Perle's words these last couple of years. What did he know?

That they had absolutely no evidence of anything: that is, in upside downworld, Saddam was incredibly devious. In the real world this meant, what I have no doubt most knew it meant. Saddam had jack.

They were babbling on over at the Telegraph about the same thing - needing some kind of pretext to invade Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/21/wsimp21.xml

'Maybe some casus belli can be engineered by pushing Saddam into a corner over UN weapons inspections;'

They had decided Saddam was a bad man and they needed to get him. Whatever works, man.

The real question for the decoder ring is this: who leaked to Novak? Whoever it was contemplated getting rid of Rumsfeld and installing the neos solidly at DoD.

If it was them, then that means they are willing to let go of Iraq, probably to get at Iran.

If it was Rice, then they might still be holding onto Rumsfeld, and they might not be willing to let go of Iraq. How they are going to square that with getting into Iran is beyond me.

Perle and Frum laid out the plan. That is the direction they are moving. The political arm will NOT stop them. The political arm see too much benefit in using wars to win elections.

The unsettled question is what happens when the political arm realizes that all this war business is getting them into trouble. (2006?) Do the neos have enough pookie to push the Bushies overboard and get a 'better' candidate? Or will the Bushies decide to push them overboard to save the party?

Of course, they are planning on avoiding that outcome, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

You can't put two scorpions in a bottle and not have them fight, now can you?

ash
['We shall see.']

John Bolton: a regular, standup, Old Testament guy.

At his confirmation hearings a few years ago the late and unlamented Senator Jesse Helms said of John that he "is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, or what the Bible describes as the final battle between good and evil."

Jesse won't be there with us to see it, but perhaps John and his pals will, indeed, bring the rest of us to the threshold of Armageddon.
JohnStuart

Steve, this article is a bit dated but Gary Leupp's musings ( Professor of History at Tufts University ) are pretty much on the money i.e. the super tight connection with Sharon and the Likudites. and "it's better to be feared than loved"

Neocon Musings
http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040827Leupp.shtml

I don't get it. What am I mising? Neo-cons obviously see themselves as visionaries so why can't they see that our military has it's hands full just trying to subdue a bunch of innsurgents whom (the neo-cons say) are not match for us. Our guys are fighting in 25 30lbs worth of combat gear and have air support while our oppositon is bunch a men running around in sandles and (what appears to be) nightgowns--(it's traditional dress for the region I know that) but they are giving us fits. These innsurgents have our men running from city to city to city. Eventually our men will be exhausted. What do we do then? Nuke the country in order to save it? (sound familiar to anyone)

We're not loosing but we sure as hell ain't winning. CAn't they see that? What do they see. when they look at Iraq? Success?

Still one the best articles on the Neocons...

Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html
By Stephen Green
May 2004

Since 9/11, a small group of “neoconservatives” in the administration have effectively gutted—they would say reformed—traditional American foreign and security policy. Features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions of international law...all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.

Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons’ past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration’s new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neocon campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region—Iran and Syria.

Another story that gave us an "inside scoop" that pointed to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz -- Feith was secondary that was not followed up on because our "lame ass" American mainstream media was once again asleep at the wheel.

The spies who pushed for war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
Thursday July 17, 2003

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms. The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party."

And finally Justin Raimondo over the past few years has been writing some good pieces on the Neocons. Here's his latest one...

Triumph of the Neocons
Bush Cabinet shuffle deals the War Party a winning hand
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3993
by Justin Raimondo
November 17, 2004

Steve, I think the tenor of Perle's comment is in line with traditional neoconservative doctrine about dictators and how they can deceive and so forth. We never did find those super-special Soviet subs ... Keep in mind that we never, ever, had any hard evidence, just some "If I have three apples and take away two, how many apples do I have left" kind of logic. Perle surely recognized that.

While I don't want to defend Mr. Perle, I suspect his comment to you on not finding any Iraqi WMD was related more to the prospect of the UN inspectors finding evidence of WMD, hence his disdain towards Powell's advocacy of going through the UN and reinstating the formal inspections process.

I can't imagine that Perle expressed that remark in the context of U.S. troops invading the nation and still not finding any WMD. Why would Iraqi WMD scientists/military personnel today have any reason to fear Saddam's retribution if they point to the hidden stockpiles?

Steve,

The anecdote about Bolton's gay employee moves me not at all. I can't understand the suggestion that there is anything at all to be concluded - of either a reassuring or discouraging nature - from the fact that Bolton appears to worry more about national security than conservative religious social and sexual morality. It is the nature of the national security "worrying" that makes all the difference, and attitudes toward gay rights don't strike me as a particularly informative indicator of foreign policy attitudes.

It's nice to know Bolton is not a gay-basher, and tolerates gay colleagues. But which would be more dangerous in a high foreign policy official: a bigoted homophobe whose sexual intolerance was combined with a genuinely conservative aversion to foreign adventurism? Or a passionate and enlightened secular defender of gay rights who is an equally passionate defender of the right of the enlightened few to bomb the crap out of the unenlightened many, and to stomp out the forces of religious bigotry wherever he finds them? Bolton's treatment of gays tells me exactly nothing about what we can expect from a Bolton-inspired foreign policy.

Some of the neocons seem to get credit in many quarters, even among many who otherwise disagree with them, for their zealous commitment to something variously characterized as "secularism" or "modernity". Perhaps as an atheist growing up in a loving religious family, I have acquired less of an interest than some other secularists in fighting an unending cultural war on behalf of my (ir)religious convictions. I would love to see a future free of religious superstition and blind adherence to tradition and unthinking faith. One of these millennia, it may come about. Meanwhile we all have a real world to live in, where the major religions are here to stay for the foreseeable future. The Perle dream of using unlikely "secular Shiite" puppets like Chalabi and Pahlavi Jr. as the catalysts to kick-start a massive global European-style enlightenment in the Islamic world, and forcibly "secularize" it, is an incredibly dumb and mischievous idea - a case of comically vaulting ambition.

Being a "secularist" doesn't translate into an automatic plus in my book. I'll take a thoughtful Christian humanist fond of More and Erasmus, a conservative Jew schooled in religious Jewish moral philosophy with its noted emphasis on justice, or a Catholic with Thomistic conceptions of just war and a patient commitment to building human community and universal brotherhood over a fanatical neocon revolutionary secularist any day of the week.

i am glad to find this site.

my thoery is that cheney is the braun & perle is the brain of this gang.

Until you learn how to quote people properly, Steve, no one can take you seriously. You need to be more precise if you're going to parse statements, and when you're passing along gossip -- which is all this really is -- you need to be a little more responsible than this.

I don't know about that Ed, if I were Steve I'd figure this is MY blog and I can post what I want. People can read it and take it for what it's worth or leave and not come back. I agree it's gossip, but so what; blogs are filled with gossip.

I appreciate the inside look at the cast of characters that STeve provides. It is sort of gossip I guess, but not malicious. This is my favorite blog. So thank you, Steve.

John Bolton to Dep Sec State.

While there are no doubt's about John's conservative ideological perspective, he would bring something valuable to the Seventh Floor: a high IQ and a good education.

Condi is tenacious and loyal, but not particularly bright. Her intellectual development
was shaped largely at the less-than-distinguished University of Denver (both undergrad and doctoral studies) where her mentor was Dr Josef Korbel (an interesting, but less-than-stellar Eastern European expat professor who happened to be Madeleine Albright's dad).

Condi was an assiduous but not outstanding student, graduating cum laude from UDenver (in contrast to John B's summa from Yale). Faculty at Stanford say that they have run Condi's PhD thesis throught the plaigarism program that Stanford uses to check the originality of its student work & found very substantial lifts from the works of others.

John B, by contrast, was at Yale in the same era as "W", but did not hang out drinking beer at the Deke House. John was a super student who maxed-out in almost every course and was a star undergrad in the Yale political science department.

He went on to Yale Law a fwe years after Bill and Hillary and where he dramatically outperformed Bill and modestly outperformed Hillary.

This is going to be a neocon era. That may be a sad truth, but it is a fact.

So we should hope for smart neocons rather than dumb ones. Consider VP Cheney:
--- flunked out of Yale twice (remember this was Yale at the time when as dim a bulb as W could ern C's!)
--- finished up undergrad at Caspar College in Wyoming with a distinctly modest record
--- headed off to grad school at UW in Madison where he failed his quals in the PhD program

The smart neocons (Wolfowitz et al) may rouse our ire, but the dumb ones are even more dangerous.

Steve's readers may find this small comfort, but consider the alternative: all the top national security jobs filled by people of Cheney's character and capabilities!
JohnStuart

Note to Ed Rusch: Thanks for your admonition about quotes. I certainly do know how to quote people properly -- but in the passages I have shared about Perle in this case, as well as in the soldier's statement previously, I have never shared that these were more than conversations. I have kept detailed notes of the comments and exchanges -- but they are what they are, no more. If you can't take them seriously -- I respect your reasons for not doing so. But given what I see on a daily basis in the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post and others where comments by others -- including quotes -- are frequently distorted out of context, I don't think that what I have provided here compares badly at all. If you want highly distilled news that dozens have vetted, there are better sources for that. I think that my encounters with folks -- and the somewhat gossipy nature of some of what I have shared -- helps to fill in the cracks of what we know. But I think you'll see that I can provide both kinds of reporting -- that which you prefer and another that the Al Kamen's have stylized.

best,
Steve Clemons

JohnStuart,

Since I am implacably hostile to the neocon plan of action, I am not at all convinced that I should prefer a smart neocon to a middlin' one. A smart one would presumably be better at advancing the neocon agenda, and possess superior skill in lying, outmaneuvering rivals, fabricating intelligence, backchannel international networking and subversion of the public will and all of the other characteristic neocon pastimes and proclivities.

Dumb neocons, on the other hand, are more likely to bungle their efforts and are thus more likely to hurry the day when the country is handed back over to the grownups.

Your sketch of Bolton only depresses me and leads me to cry: "not another neocon boy wonder!" One of the least appealing traits of the neocons is their vanity and overweaning intellectual pride. That is the trait behind their pronounced anti-democratic impulses, and their self-image as philosopher kings, entitled by their transcendant mental gifts to rule by stealth over the rest of us, and to bring down the fire of the gods for the benefit of an impossibly ignorant mankind.

Intelligence is only one component of practical wisdom. As a country we have suffered bofore - witness Vietnam - at the hands of "the best and the brightest," with their academic lecture hall schemes and narcissistic global game-playing.

So I am not about to accept your suggestion that, since I am about to be raped anyway, I should just bend over and be thankful my assailant aced his bar exam and could beat Bill Clinton on Jeopardy.

"John B, by contrast, was at Yale in the same era as "W", but did not hang out drinking beer at the Deke House. John was a super student who maxed-out in almost every course and was a star undergrad in the Yale political science department."

When you consider that "W", without much apparent effort, managed to get Cs, it's not clear how John maxing out (getting A s ?) during the same era is all that impressive. He may have outperformed Bill Clinton at Yale Law, but can he do the New York Times crossword puzzle in 10 minutes?