Neo Culpa

[Crossbow]

Anyone else notice how some of the most powerful and influential pro-war people are now publicly regretting their original stand?

The magazine "Vanity Fair" magazine will be posting a series of articles that focus on these exact issues.

Ugh! It sure is a shame that more cannot be done to them besides making feel rather embarrassed about the whole Iraq War thing.

From the first of the articles:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

Neo Culpa

...

I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away.

...

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

...

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone else notice how some of the most powerful and influential pro-war people are now publicly regretting their original stand?

...[/I]
Tell me, why is Perle not being charge with Crimes Against Humanity, as Saddam has? What is the litmus test for this? He could be charged as an accomplice, or an accessory before the fact, in the deaths of any number of Iraqis.

Could it be that might makes right, or makes it alright? :boggled:

DR

[Mephisto]

I agree with DR, it's too bad that someone can't be held internationally accountable for this debacle. We've done nothing more in Iraq than profit from the war, kill nearly 3,000 American soldiers, cause the death of 665,000 Iraqis and recruit more terrorists.

It's also unfortunate that the majority of those who drafted the plans for this fiasco are only repentant because their guilt is emblazoned across the world consciousness and NOT because they feel they've done anything wrong.

I particularly like this quote from the article:

"Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Isn't it somewhat telling that the very thing the "leftists" were screaming about in the beginning of all this, is the very thing they now admit they should have done? It would have saved the lives of 2,8000 Americans and 665,000 Iraqis and yet anyone who spoke against the invasion was labeled unpatriotic.

[NoZed Avenger]

Anyone else notice how some of the most powerful and influential pro-war people are now publicly regretting their original stand?

The magazine "Vanity Fair" magazine will be posting a series of articles that focus on these exact issues.
Neo Culpa


. . . or not:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgxYzUzYmRlNjhmNzMyNjI2MDM4YmRjNTFhODA4MGQ=

Editor's Note: On Friday, Vanity Fair issued a press release highlighting excerpts of a piece in their January issue on “neoconservative” supporters of the war in Iraq who today, unsurprisingly, have some negative things to say about how the war is going and how the Bush administration has been handling it.

In the wake of the press release – which has gotten considerable play on the Internet – some of those “neoconservatives” highlighted in the article have responded to the excerpts and its misrepresentations, in some cases, of what they said. We collect some of those reactions — including from Eliot Cohen, David Frum, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and Michael Rubin — below.

Perle exceprt:


Richard Perle:

Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

I believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave Iraq, as some are demanding, before the Iraqis are able to defend their elected government. As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.

[hammegk]

Quotes out-of-context and lies.

Just more usual, standard, leftwing Demo'rat tactics in the MSM.

[Mephisto]

. . . or not:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzgxYzUzYmRlNjhmNzMyNjI2MDM4YmRjNTFhODA4MGQ=



Perle exceprt:

I especially liked this: "As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq."

More fear mongering, unless they can show us HOW the terrorist threat would be worse. Oh yeah, all those terrorists being trained in Iraq as a result of this war might buy a plane ticket. ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

I especially liked this: "As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq."

More fear mongering, unless they can show us HOW the terrorist threat would be worse. Oh yeah, all those terrorists being trained in Iraq as a result of this war might buy a plane ticket. ;)


I am not here to argue for or against any of the people's opinions being cited by Vanity Fair. Several don't even agree with each other, and one or two have been critics of Iraq policy for a few years, at least. Not my point.

Right or wrong, the people listed in the article referenced in the opening post have stated that their views are being misstated or distorted, and it appears as if it is being done by Vanity Fair for partisan advantage.

For purposes of this thread, then, let's assume arguendo that Perle is a ruthless fearmonger and that the rest of the "neocons" being quoted have all signed a secret pact with Satan and/or Rove, according to who you believe in as the unlitmate evil, and that they are evil, wrong, and evil-wrong.

With that issue out of the way, what about Vanity Fair's conduct?

[Chaos]

I am not here to argue for or against any of the people's opinions being cited by Vanity Fair. Several don't even agree with each other, and one or two have been critics of Iraq policy for a few years, at least. Not my point.

Right or wrong, the people listed in the article referenced in the opening post have stated that their views are being misstated or distorted, and it appears as if it is being done by Vanity Fair for partisan advantage.

For purposes of this thread, then, let's assume arguendo that Perle is a ruthless fearmonger and that the rest of the "neocons" being quoted have all signed a secret pact with Satan and/or Rove, according to who you believe in as the unlitmate evil, and that they are evil, wrong, and evil-wrong.

With that issue out of the way, what about Vanity Fair's conduct?

With that issue out the way, what about proof that Vanity Fair actually *did* grossly misrepresent these folks´ opinion on the matter?

[NoZed Avenger]

With that issue out the way, what about proof that Vanity Fair actually *did* grossly misrepresent these folks´ opinion on the matter?

You mean apart from the people being quoted saying it and requesting that Vanity Fair release the full text of the interview?

What other evidence can I produce at this date?

[Mephisto]

You mean apart from the people being quoted saying it and requesting that Vanity Fair release the full text of the interview?

What other evidence can I produce at this date?

Well, William Rivers Pitt has some interesting things to say regarding "The Rat Pack."
____________


The best bit of all, perhaps, came after Rose's article hit the wires. A National Review "symposium" published on Sunday morning sprayed heated outrage from these four men over the fact that their thoughts about Bush and Iraq were made public. Each was apparently shocked - shocked! - that they might actually have to stand by their words.

"Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election," said Perle on Sunday, "I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election. I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country. I believe the president is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path."

These rats are trying to scramble off the sinking ship they helped put to sea, but don't you dare take anything they have to say about it, anything they ever said about it, at face value. They lack the courage of their earlier convictions, and flee even the chance to repent. They are neither here nor there, but nowhere. They are a vapid void where morality and simple integrity have not, and never will, find purchase.

If only the folks in the White House and Pentagon had known this a few years ago. They could have taken the words of Phaedrus to heart - "A coward boasting of his courage may deceive strangers, but he is a laughing-stock to those who know him." - and saved us all a great deal of death and sorrow.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110606Z.shtml
__________

Sounds like the typical liberal media spin, doesn't it? ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, William Rivers Pitt has some interesting things to say regarding "The Rat Pack."
____________

[Insert opinion based apparently on no more information than has already been posted, no transcript, and nothing new re: whether VF actually misquoted anyone, or not.]

__________

Sounds like the typical liberal media spin, doesn't it? ;)

Actually, it sounds like you record's broken.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Anyone else notice how some of the most powerful and influential pro-war people are now publicly regretting their original stand?Heck, how can you miss it? The image I have in my mind is a bunch of rats abandoning HMS GW Bush as it burns furiously ...

Charlie (just wait till '08) Monoxide

[Mephisto]

Actually, it sounds like you record's broken.

Sometimes things like this bear repeating - although I'm sure people who initially supported the war and the "WMD rhetoric" or "Democracy building" rhetoric don't like to be reminded of it.

[luchog]

Sometimes things like this bear repeating - although I'm sure people who initially supported the war and the "WMD rhetoric" or "Democracy building" rhetoric don't like to be reminded of it.
And you completely ignore the bit in your quote about the claims that their words were mischaracterized or distorted.

But I guess having read the entire transcript of the interview, you'd know exactly what they really meant to say.

[NoZed Avenger]

Let me be clear:

VF may have gotten this 100% right. It is possible.

But.

I can't see the logic behind 'neocons' agreeing to a series of interviews just so that they can then wait for VF to post excerpts so that they can then all complain about it. That plan is so diabolical that . . . . No, wait, that isn't diabolical, that's an incredibly stupid plan that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Until we see the transcripts, we can't know who is telling the truth, but I am hesitant to take the VF characterization of the interviews as gospel (if you'll pardon the expression) when the people being interviewed -- all holding different opinions re the war, mind you -- are saying that VF is mischaracterizing what they've said.

[a_unique_person]

Everyone knows he wants to stay the course, the GOP to win, the good guys to beat the bad guys. That's hardly news, that's what he always says. If that was what he spent 95% of the interview saying, so what.

The news is that he thinks the Republicans under Bush are incompetent and dysfunctional.

[Chaos]

You mean apart from the people being quoted saying it and requesting that Vanity Fair release the full text of the interview?

What other evidence can I produce at this date?

People have been quoted saying "we know he [Saddam] has them [WMD] and we know where they are". That turned out to be BS as well.

My point is, you´re taking the statements of a bunch of ******* politicians as gospel truth.

[Brainache]

In 2002/2003 I was posting on another forum (the Tolkien Forum as Sador) and I was villified for saying that the US shouldn't go to war with Iraq. I said that Iraq had no proven connection with 9/11 and that Bush could be seen as a war criminal for invading Iraq.

Funny old world Innit?

[a_unique_person]

It brought out the worst in some people.

[NoZed Avenger]

People have been quoted saying "we know he [Saddam] has them [WMD] and we know where they are". That turned out to be BS as well.

My point is, you´re taking the statements of a bunch of ******* politicians as gospel truth.

No. I thought I had been clear; I can't be clearer.

So I'll give up and let everyone get on with celebrating what these people have said before actually seeing it, since everyone is certain what they've said supports their views, sight unseen.