Frum and Perle - scary!

David Frum and Richard Perle have a new book out called "An End to Evil" which calls for a radical change in U.S. policy. (Not that it hasn't been radical for the last year.) These guys are ... let's put it this way ... they are not "out of the loop", and clearly represent a segment of neocon thinking. David Brooks should read their book before penning more nonsense in the New York Times about neocons. Here are some highlights from their book as reported in the (anti-Semitic-according-to-Brooks) Forward:

• ... Frum and Perle call for universal biometric fingerprinting ...
  
  
• [Frum and Perle call for] a complete reform of the State Department ...
  
  
• ... Frum and Perle advocate firing George Tenet, director of the CIA ...
  
  
• ... Frum and Perle advocate ... relieving the FBI of the "counter-terrorism job it has bungled."
  
  
• Frum and Perle argue that "we must destroy regimes implicated in anti-American terrorism," and provide a list of potential targets, including North Korea, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Iran.     "We must move boldly against them. . . . And we don't have much time," they write.
  
  
• [Frum and Perle advocate] immediate steps to bring about regime change in Iran and Syria ...
  
  
• [Frum and Perle propose] a military blockade of North Korea ...
  
  
• [Frum and Perle argue] that "a more closely integrated Europe is no longer an unqualified American interest," and that America should actively try to drive a wedge between France and the rest of the continent.
  
  

Had enough?

We watched the authors on the Charlie Rose show earlier this week, and boy, was it revealing.

Here are our notes from the program:

Perle - international law not sufficient to allow U.S. to go after a tyrant who abuses his people
Frum - Saddam a "charismatic extremist who gave hope to the people who hate the U.S." - therefore justified in taking him out
Perle - problems with State, CIA, FBI, (international) lawyers, UN
Perle - need to reform the military (due to technical advances), need to reform CIA
Frum - "It's not high-tech banditry [al Qaeda], it's a real war"
Perle - approves the use of threatening governments to obtain policy changes
Perle - on Saudi Arabia: "If you take the money away, the extremist groups are a tiny little fringe" [but that undercuts their Clash of Civilization theme.]
Frum - stop the money -> stop the terrorist(s) [also undercuts Clash of Civ.]
Perle - "Democracies don't make war" "wars are started by dictators who need wars to stay in power" (!)
Frum - reason reform of govt. agencies hasn't happened is not the problem of Bush or Republicans in congress, but due to "inertia"
Perle - on Syria: CIA far too eager to accept crumbs (of intel. help)
Perle - threat of terrorist attack [is equivalent to] threat of invasion across borders
Frum - U.N. can't be arbiter of when the U.S. is able to defend itself
Perle - U.N. can't be arbiter for any nation.
Perle - Saddam was a threat to our survival: hated US, had WMD, had used in past, had capacity to produce, on verge of getting out from under sanctions
Frum - the "debate about Iraq is behind us"
Frum - "terrorism is about lies; lies don't last"

posted by Quiddity at 1/10/2004 10:28:00 PM

We haven't forgotten:

He's been in the slammer four months now (out of a nine month sentence). Here's an update on the dude - a story that tells you about Tommy Chong, his family, how the authorities went after him, and what's he's doing now. Excerpt:

... it is a case of the Bush administration confusing the present with the 1960s, an era whose rebellious legacy it seems obsessed with obliterating. To Ashcroft and other Puritan Republicans, Tommy Chong’s prosecution is merely another skirmish in their implacable war against the 20th century. In this climate it becomes almost pointless to talk about the drug-war hypocrisy of a White House whose mortgage is owned by pharmaceutical monopolies. Or of the reverential treatment given the Oxy-popping Rush Limbaugh by neo-McCarthyites like Bill O’Reilly, who lyingly told a Jay Leno audience that Tommy Chong had been arrested 18 times.

posted by Quiddity at 1/10/2004 11:15:00 AM

Seeing things our way:

Readers of this weblog know our view is that al Qaeda is a menace, not a state power, and that Bush should have rounded these guys up in Tora Bora when the political and tactical opportunities existed (roughly from September 2001 - March 2002). Instead, the Bush administration has played defense (PATRIOT Act, airline security, Orange Alerts, fingerprinting visitors) in addition to using the terror threat to boost the military budget. It's almost as if an arsonist and his cronies were on the loose, and the response is to put more fire extinquishers in the house. But that's silly. You go and capture the arsonist.

In any event, we are beginning to see opinions expressed that Bush's reaction to 9/11 was a missed opportinity, and a way to further other policy goals (most notably invading Iraq). We suspect that this (slowly growing) consensus is the result of time. Where are these al Qaeda guys? Where are the weapons caches? How come there hasn't been anything other than truck and car bombs - and in far away places?

The answer might be that al Qaeda - dispite admiration from a segment of the Islamic world - is effectively 2,000 folks with a millionaire sugar daddy. (We hasten to point out that we could be wrong in this assessment, but our view at least deserves consideration in the debate since all evidence to date points to a less-than-impressive al Qaeda.) WIth that said, here are some excerpts from commentators about Bush's overall response to 9/11:

James Carroll writing in the Boston Globe (via Random Walks)

George W. Bush obscenely exploits war for his own purposes. He sponsors a paranoid assessment of what threatens America now and draws political advantage from the resulting fear. The news media propagate that fear. Pundits continue the false opposition between "realist" and "idealist" visions, marginalizing anyone who dares question Garrison America.

Paul Krugman (get it before it becomes a pay-to-view-article)

Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance.

George Soros, writing in The Atlantic (mostly about foreign/military policy

The terrorist attack on the United States could have been treated as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war. Treating it as a crime would have been more appropriate. ...

Declaring war on terrorism better suited the purposes of the Bush Administration, because it invoked military might; ....

The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy.

posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2004 03:21:00 PM

More on David Brooks:

We discussed (two posts below) Brooks' essay that attempts to de-link neoconservatives and the Project for the New American Century from Bush's foreign policy. We only highlighted Brooks notion that Bush "formed conclusions on his own", thinking that was funny. However, his essay requires a further thrashing. To begin with, let's see how uninfluential PNAC is in the administration. Consider this diagram we published last February:



See? It was only the Vice President and Secretary of Defense who - with another 11 government officials - signed on to the PNAC agenda.

Then, read Brooks.

Then, read Howler's excellent discussion on Brooks (focusing on the anti-Semitic charge).

Finally, if you are still with us, catch Josh Marshall's review of Brooks. Excerpts:

We’ve now gone from arguments where anti-Semitism is perceived at the margins of critiques of neoconservative intellectuals to the current practice in which it is treated as a given that 'neoconservative' is simply a code word for Jew and criticisms of the same are one shade or another of anti-Semitism.


[Brooks] aim is to discredit any notion that neoconservatism plays any significant role in Bush administration foreign policy --- a demonstrably ridiculous point. Brooks does this by mixing in all sorts of code words about ‘conspiracies’, ‘jews’, radio communications through dental filings and the like to stigmatize as ridiculous what is actually a serious issue and ripe field for serious debate.

It’s almost the definition of anti-intellectualism.

UPDATE: The original post had us writing about the V.P. and Secretary of State signing on to the PNAC agenda. Should have been Secretary of Defense. Thanks to SP and Mark for correcting us.

posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2004 11:14:00 AM

David Horowitz - ignorant of history:

In an Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times - mostly bashing progressives - "scholar" Horowitz writes:

The United States and Britain, which led the world in ending slavery ...

Now Britain was a leader, but consider this timeline:

1821 The region that now includes Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela adopted a gradual emancipation plan.
1823 Chile agreed to emancipate its slaves.
1829 Mexico abolished slavery.
1833 Britain emancipated 780,000 slaves.
1848 Denmark and France freed slaves in their colonial empires.
1863 Dutch New World colonies abolished slavery.
1865 United States abolished slavery.
1886 Slaves emancipated in Cuba.
1888 Brazil abolished slavery.

posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2004 06:43:00 AM

Joke of the day:

David Brooks writes in the New York Times and dismisses charges that neoconservatives had much of a hand in shaping the administration's foreign policy (especially the invasion of Iraq). He says:

It's true that both Bush and the people labeled neocons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But correlation does not mean causation. All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently.

posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2004 06:18:00 AM