CSPAN: Hudson Institute w/JM Marshall next to Richard Perle

Adrian Wooldridge of the Economist quotes Shirley Williams (British MP?), Villepin, others, as saying that US govt has been taken over by Neocons.

swinish, ubercorrupt to the bone Perle, agrees with Wooldridge's characterization as nonsense, saying that if Williams, etal, represent the middle of the road's view of who's running things, that it shows how badly the MOR has become skewed to the left.

how ironic, eh? insane ideologues like Perle sure are good at calling the kettle black.

wonder if he'd like to comment on his little company, Trireme, and its slezay involvement with entities like the DOD, to Hollinger (which runs Conrad Black's empire, including the Telegraph, the Chicago Sun Times, among others)

Now Gary Schmitt, Exec Director of PNAC (!!!!), calling the current administration, essentially NOT neocon, implying that the real policymaking force lies with the likes of Powell, and the MORoaders there. says PNAC has CRITICIZED the admin lots of the time (I guess for not being fascist enough)

Back to Perle....so far Marshall hasn't spoken.....says the CIA is in terrible shape, FBI is not better, in reference to the War on Terror.

this is very very hard to stomach. this guy is harder to take than Bush. at least he can express himself


RERUN at 12:15AM; well worth preserving for look into the hearts of darkness

says that neocons CROW about their influence, then hold forums like this one to DERIDE the idea that they have this influence

Perle: point already made that current policy was FORCED upon it by circumstances (911).

what alternative policies could critics of neocons offer?

he is TRULY insane!!!!!!

how bout going after OSAMA, and not SADDAM???????

Perle: perhaps Mr. Marshall, eliminating neocon influence, could suggest what policy COULD be followed, rather than the one taken

Marshall taking it to Perle almost as well as Holbrooke did on MTP a month or so ago. that was among the best things I've seen.....Holbrooke called him a liar, basically, to Perle's face

Perle again asks Marshall what his alternative to current policy would be, but slimy Lawrence Kaplan won't let him answer.

Kaplan makes fun of whole situation, talking about the Pentagon, "where these mysterious neocons roost", derides their influence on DOD.

Wooldgridge on Perle: had the neocons not been in the admin, history might well have gone in a different direction "our policy includes ending states--Wolfowitz", to which Powell dissented, saying it should center around ending terror.

we all know which side prevailed

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):

if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

He doesn't look mad, he doesn't sound mad (in the off-his-rocker sense), and oh, that honey tounge, 'I'm a reasonable guy,' voice.

Marshall's slapping 'em, bless his heart.

On Edit - FYI, The Hudson Institute is a heavily pro-corporate think tank. I first found them when I was looking into the GM/Organic food fight, and they rip organic food promotion every chance they get.

Give him hell Josh! BTW, one of the other panel members is the executive director of PNAC. Josh is indeed in the heart of darkness.

That other PNACguy is talking about a "buffet of ideas" that Bush had to pick from to take care of his "appetite" after 9/11. All he needs is a moustache to complete his Himmler look.

could you do something that replaces his eyesockets with assholes?

that's always the way I picture him in my nightmares

I tried desperately to get through to CSPAN when he was last on, calling on 3 different lines nonstop... I wanted to say I was a big fan of his, then calmly ask if he was fooling anybody with that combover. The reaction would've been priceless.

Schmitt: undeniable that there's massive WMD proliferation/terrorism throughout the world, blah blah blah. "you have to have policy to address it"

says regime change is the way to do it.....arms control doesn't work

cites SAfrica, Argentina, some other countries I didn't catch; says their WMDs weren't gotten rid of til the despotic regimes changed.
talk about disingenuous!!!!! SAfrica changed due to sanctions, other outside pressures, and an INDIGENOUS 'uprising', NOT by any outside invasion. how STUPID do these cranks take info consumers to be????

have only watched since the comments I made in header, so he may have spoken earlier

calm, collected, and grinning.

He can probably SMELL the evil wafting over from Perle.

controlling putting forward the ideas of foreign policy. Where are the women???

JMM: how can you tell?

JMM: calls "robust foreign policy" appellation very self-congratulatory. says Perle's premise that Saddam supported terrorism is fundamentally arguable, as well as his WMDs. absolutely in critical security interest to change Saddam/inspector ......., but the way things have been handled since 2002 leave doubt.

Perle: what would YOU have done?

JMM: you've disparaged intel saying he didn't have WMDs, while intel that showed from as far back as 1991, that we should NOT have rushed into invasion.

Perle: would you have left Saddam in place?

JMM: FIRST, NO evidence linking Osama/Saddam. Second, obvious that his programs were much less progressive than even I thought they were, and we should NOT have rushed in as quickly as we have.

Perle: best evidence we had (UNSCOM) said there were unaccounted-for WMDS. how do you manage that risk. JMM says "leave him in place, gather support." that is unacceptable risk.

Well, DICK.........why didn't you invade IMMEDIATELY after 911, if this danger was so immediate? why mess w/Afghanistan?

Marshall should have some DUers there to provide him with comebacks, but they keep truncating his responses

delusional economist guy Wooldridge says

NO!!!! says they'd have been multilateralist til it didn't serve purposes, then gone after Saddam (I guess....didn't say it, but implied it)

next question, didn't catch, but Perle talks about how Bush, the straight shooter inspires dislike because of his personal style, then cites Kyoto as example of why he's unpopular overseas.

then Perle rambles on about the mean old foreign press is uniformly left, and antiBush. says if you were a French TV watcher, you'd think that "EVERY last Iraqi hates America!"

mean old US press

Marshall takes Perle to task over media coverage, says foreign policy has changed a lot over four years, and THAT's why we're disliked, and to call the reason for the dislike "cosmetic," "biased media coverage" is disingenuous.

Perle backtracks, but says that Luxembourg isn't staying awake worrying about attacks in the NY City subway. what an ass. as if there haven't been 10s of times more terror attacks in Europe than here.

can't STAND this creep. can't believe I'm still watching

Schmitt says PD, really meaning PR has suffered, and we need to have better propaganda, essentially.

a**hole Michael Barone says Gore might not have identified an axis of evil and would have let Iraq skate.

JMM: Gore would've framed issue differently; wouldn't have framed it as axis of evil; wouldn't have had David Frum as speechwriter, heh.

on Iraq: not completely sure--says Gore was more hawkish than Clinton. not a logical continuum to finding ALQaeda in Iraq, though

Perle thinks he would have, eventually.

DUH, you slime!!!

says difference in admins would be their going after state sponsors of terrorism, and what they'd have done about it.

Q: how lasting is bond between neocons and bible believing Christians and Jews.

Wooldridge: no link, silly to make it, but politically it matters, as Bush's core is formed of biblethumping mouthbreathers (my words)

I'd say a thumbs up from PNAC explains why I hate those two.

after stating that he's a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT (in honor of his DINO boss, Scoop Jackson--who was one of the ringleaders in destroying the Carter presidency, along with Tip ONeill.....see "Libery Under Seige, by Walter Karp"), plies that hoary lie about Reagan standing up to the USSR, ending forty years of peaceful coexistence, thereby bringing communism, as we know it, to an end.

it's this sort of delusional, grandiose, megalomania that stands a good chance of bringing the modern world to an end.

this was so sickeningly enlightening.....a window into this modern day Strangelove's foul black soul.

all in that oily, Satanic purr of his. Ugh.

pls?

here's the first one:

The neocons, we are told by the Telegraph, are "unfazed despite war in Iraq," as the headline put it. The occasion for this reassuring news was an interview with the combative Dark Prince of the neoconservatives, Richard Perle, who complained about all the nasty name-calling on the part of his enemies:

"Fascist. Warmongerer. Imperialist. With the smallest of sighs, Richard Perle, aka Prince of Darkness, ticked off a checklist of the insults he has received in recent months."

Crybaby Perle starts a war on the playground and then goes weeping and wailing to the teacher when the other kids call him names. The poor thing! Oh, but that's the very least of it:

"He saved the most emotive until last: neo-conservative. After all, what greater insult is there in right-thinking circles these days than neo-con – that buzzword for all that is 'scary' and single-minded about Bush's America?"

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112103.html

read this; you'll be glad you did, and it'll infuriate you that this sort of coverage NEVER, EVER graces the mainstream media, whether it be print/TV/radio, or internet sites like MSNBC, ABC, CNN.com, etc.

here's the interview
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/17/nbush117.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/17/ixnewstop.html

can you do something with this?



please?