the word from on high

[sisyphusshrugged]

Mylroie co-author Mr. Muravchik, of PNAC and the AEI,* explains in the Washington Post why conservatives should stick with Our Fearless Leader

A few weeks earlier, Richard Perle, one of the most respected neocons, had penned a scathing critique of Bush's Iran policy [Outlook, June 25]. I myself may have contributed to the overall impression of neocon disillusionment by decrying the administration's flaccid response to a wave of repression by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak [op-ed, June 27].

But for neocons or any other conservatives to turn against George W. Bush would be a terrible mistake. Presidents invariably disappoint their strongest supporters. Their powers are limited, and they must cope with Congress, public opinion, unwieldy agencies and, where foreign policy is concerned, other nations that can help or hinder us. The results never match the elegance of the policies formulated by people like me, who grapple only with editors...

None of this is to say that Bush's performance, including the campaign in Iraq, is above criticism by conservatives -- or liberals. I worry, for example, about whether he is conceding too much to our U.N. Security Council partners regarding Iran. But if he is going to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities -- as I believe he will have to do and will not shrink from doing -- his position will be strengthened by having exhausted every diplomatic possibility. I worry, too, about indulging North Korea. But no president can tackle every problem at once.

This cheery bit of batshit insanity has been brought to you by one of the people who planned the war we can't get out of now, and he's got more wars planned for us.

Maybe Mr. Bush really doesn't need to control Congress any more.


*Mr. Muravchik is also the author of a recent book suggesting that the Washington Post, the New York Times and the vast broadcast media conspiracy are in the tank for the Palestinians, although the freepers in their thread about it were in rough agreement that control of Hollywood by a ruthless cabal of self-hating jews explains that.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Richard Perle, one of the most respected neocons

Soft bigotry of low standards...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle#Investigation_into_conflicts_of_interest

phersu

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was my first spit take in this one.

[temima.livejournal.com]

in rough agreement that control of Hollywood by a ruthless cabal of self-hating jews explains that

But they don't hate Jews at all. No way. Just the ones who don't agree with them. Which includes most of them, if you go by the neo-cons ranting about Jewish American voters caring about things that aren't Israel.

Then again, given that they also whined about Israel considering negotiations with Syria a long while back, their loyalties are to their pipe dreams, not to any particular country.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

That site is horribly, horribly creepy. I really think what we're seeing is the same political redefinition of judaism for political purposes that we saw with christianity in the eighties.