Their satanic majesties request

[Botnst]

Ambushed on the Potomac
by Richard Perle
01.06.2009

FOR EIGHT years George W. Bush pulled the levers of government—sometimes frantically—never realizing that they were disconnected from the machinery and the exertion was largely futile. As a result, the foreign and security policies declared by the president in speeches, in public and private meetings, in backgrounders and memoranda often had little or no effect on the activities of the sprawling bureaucracies charged with carrying out the president’s policies. They didn’t need his directives: they had their own.

Again and again the president declared “unacceptable” activities that his administration went on to accept: North Korean nuclear weapons; North Korean missile tests; Iran’s nuclear-weapons program; the Russian invasion of Georgia; genocide in Sudan; Syrian and Iranian support for jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere—the list is long. Throughout his presidency, Bush demanded that these states change their ways. When they declined to do so, policy shifted to an unanchored, foundering diplomacy engineered by a diplomatic establishment, unencumbered, especially in the second term, by even the weak, largely useless scrutiny it had come to expect from the National Security Council. When Condoleezza Rice moved to the Department of State, the gamekeeper (however ineffective) turned poacher, and the Bush presidency—its credibility gravely diminished—became indistinguishable from the institutional worldview of the State Department. There it remains today.

Those who expect an Obama foreign policy to differ significantly from the most recent policy of the outgoing administration will be surprised by what is likely to be a seamless transition: not from White House to White House, but from State Department to State Department. On all the main issues—Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Islamist terrorism, Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, relations with allies—Obama’s first term is likely to look like Bush’s second.

It will not be easy to assess objectively the foreign and security policy of the Bush administration anytime soon. Its central feature, the war in Iraq, has generated emotions that all but preclude rational discourse. And it will be nearly impossible to persuade those whose minds are made up—often on the basis of tendentious reporting and reckless blogs—to reconsider what they firmly believe they know. Too much has been written and said that is wildly inaccurate and too many of those who have expressed judgments have done so, not as disinterested observers, but as partisan participants in a rancorous debate. Nevertheless, I have tried in what follows to offer a view of what the Bush policy was in the beginning and what it became in the end.

More at: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20486

[LaRondo]

Oh, by Richard Perle! Well, if HE says so ....

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Oh, by Richard Perle! Well, if HE says so ....

Whom better to provide insight than an insider, George Stephanopoulos?

[Honus]

How many times does Richard Perle have to be completely wrong before people stop looking to him for insight?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by dculkin

How many times does Richard Perle have to be completely wrong before people stop looking to him for insight?

I dunno Perle's track record and I'll hazard a guess that very few if any objective and comprehensive analyses have been conducted. I read his opinion and understood it. he makes a reasonable argument for his perspective. Is it compelling? Sometimes.

Failing to take into account the perspectives, opinions, and recollections of people who were involved in discussions that affect policy cannot help but result in a biased, one-sided perspective.

[AustinsCE]

I got this far:

George W. Bush has been among the most straightforward American presidents in my lifetime

Before I realized it was satire. The only part he got right was:

Those who expect an Obama foreign policy to differ significantly from the most recent policy of the outgoing administration will be surprised by what is likely to be a seamless transition

[cmac2012]

Perle is one sick ****. But his ties to military contracting should keep in warm and supplied with Scotch for the duration.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Perle is one sick ****. But his ties to military contracting should keep in warm and supplied with Scotch for the duration.

Now there's a well thought out analysis of the article.

[cmac2012]

Anyone who would be fooled into thinking that the likes of Richard Perle is going to benefit them somehow gets what they deserve. Dude's a shallow self-promoter for the ages.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Anyone who would be fooled into thinking that the likes of Richard Perle is going to benefit them somehow gets what they deserve. Dude's a shallow self-promoter for the ages.

Would you suggest that to understand Stalin one should not read Beria because Beria was a big meanie? Or Hitler, read Goebbels? Or of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John? See where this is going?

[AustinsCE]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would you suggest that to understand Stalin one should not read Beria because Beria was a big meanie? Or Hitler, read Goebbels? Or of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John? See where this is going?

A more accurate analogy would be read Igor to find out about Frankenstein's monster.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

A more accurate analogy would be read Igor to find out about Frankenstein's monster.

Same point, different metaphor. And the metaphor fails in this regard: Igor and Frankenstein's monster were fictional characters. For teh sake of understand real events, most of us separate fictional, entertaining stories from actual existing personal accounts of perceived events. Though I readily acknowledge some of seem reluctant to acknowledge a difference. Or are incapable of that distinction.

[cmac2012]

That's assuming that Perle's account is more devoted to scholarship than covering his broad arse and/or securing large paychecks. He and Chalabi ought to form a consulting firm.

[AustinsCE]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Same point, different metaphor. And the metaphor fails in this regard: Igor and Frankenstein's monster were fictional characters. For teh sake of understand real events, most of us separate fictional, entertaining stories from actual existing personal accounts of perceived events. Though I readily acknowledge some of seem reluctant to acknowledge a difference. Or are incapable of that distinction.

Wouldn't writing lies and delusion equate to fiction? BTW, might want to give some of that reality another go, looks like it got jumbled in the lack of conviction.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

Wouldn't writing lies and delusion equate to fiction? BTW, might want to give some of that reality another go, looks like it got jumbled in the lack of conviction.

You appear unable to differentiate Mary Shelley's creation from Perles' perspective. Have you read either? Entirely?