All-time Stupidest Neocon Article - Brent Bozell

[sampsonblk]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2003/04/16/the_post-war_show

The post-war show
By Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, April 16, 2003


'Now it's time for the conservative media critics to get our due. Now that the war is over and Iraqis are cheering in the streets, isn't it high time to assess how all of the press's negativity -- especially before the war, if not just during -- has made the Fourth Estate look positively goofy?'

From Townhall.Com -

[ulysses]

1. !

no quagmire of unending length, no public-opinion debacle for President Bush

LOL! Nice find. :)

[sampsonblk]

9. Thanks

How does this guy still get on TV???

[OneBlueSky]

2. pretty much anything Bozell writes would qualify . . . n/t

.

[HaggardsMethDealer]

3. And yet the corporate media continues to book these clowns.

nt

[guruoo]

6. Paying good money for validation

of their delusions

[lyonn]

4. April 16, 2003! Now who looks Goofy

All the negativity in the press is another Goofy comment. Media was having a field day promoting WAR.

[sampsonblk]

10. Dm right

Remember MSNBC's "Countdown to Iraq" with Lester Holt? Pathetic.

Ironic, the show evolved into "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." God has a sense of humor!

[Rageneau]

5. It would be nice to see Russert confront Bozell with this quote.

Timmy Russert loves to play "Gotcha" with his guests, usually reserving his most persistent interrogations for Democrats. (How, oh, how many times has Timmy run that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" clip?)

Wouldn't it be nice to see Timmy give Brent the same treatment he so readilly employs with Democrats?

If the national broadcast media were truly objective, Bozell could never appear on-air with Russert (or with anyone else) without the interviewer playing back this (typically wrong) statement and asking him what he could possibly have been thinking when he wrote such ridiculous words. They also should ask him if he is prepared to apologize to Ted Koppel now.

But we all know that won't happen. Bozell's previous comments will be shoved down the media's memory hole, his slate will be wiped clean, and his every word will continue to be treated as if his brain is something other than spoiled hamburger and his thoughts are more profound than underpass graffiti.

The fact that nearly everybody knows what Brent Bozell looks like, and so (comparatively) few people know what Randi Rhodes looks like, should BY ITSELF be enough proof that the media is partial to wingnuts like Bozell, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

[Aviation Pro]

7. Google-eyed Tim Russert has lost any respect I've had for him...

...along with his vaunted credibility. His self-proclaimed "hard-hitting interviews" were neither: hard-hitting or interviews. The Cheney Shoots Guy In the Face interview is one example of how much of a toady Russert is. If I was interviewing Small Dick "Fucking" Cheney the first question I would have asked was, "were you drunk, sir, or just stupid?"

Oh, on a side note, the media should stop addressing these clowns as "Mr. President," "Mr. Vice-President," or "Sir." They have sullied the nation with their malfesance and should be addressed as "Hey, Bush," or "Hey, Cheney," although "Asshole," "Jerk-off," or "Shit Stain," would do nicely also.

[Union Thug]

8. Iraqis cheering in the streets?

So I'm confused. Didn't we want Iraqis to be cheering in the streets (candy and flowers)? But more importantly, where are the reports of Iraqis cheering in the street? Last I heard, they were discovering scores of bodies and kidnapping mercenaries.

[coda]

11. Honorable mention

* This byliner by Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, first appeared in USA Today May 2 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions. *

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/0502perle.htm


2 May 2003

Relax, Celebrate Victory
by Richard Perle

From start to finish,

President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes.

In full retreat, the war's opponents have now taken up new defensive positions: "Yes, it was a military victory, but you haven't found Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Or, "Yes, we destroyed Saddam's regime, but now other dictators will try even harder to develop weapons of mass destruction to make sure they will not fall to some future American preemptive strike."

We will find Saddam's well-hidden chemical and biological weapons programs, but only when people who know come forward and tell us where to look. While Saddam was in power, even a hint about his concealment and deception was a death sentence, often by unimaginable torture against whole families. Saddam had four years to hide things. We have had a few weeks to find them. Patience — and some help from free Iraqis — will be rewarded.

The idea that our victory over Saddam will drive other dictators to develop chemical and biological weapons misses the key point: They are already doing so. That's why we may someday need to preempt rather than wait until we are attacked.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, these and other nations are relentless in their pursuit of terror weapons. Does anyone seriously argue that they would abandon their programs if we had left Saddam in power? It is a little like arguing that we should not subdue knife-wielding criminals because, if we do, other criminals will go out and get guns. Moreover, this argument, deployed by those who will not take victory for an answer, confuses cause and effect: Does any peaceful state that neither harbors terrorists nor seeks weapons of mass destruction fear that we will launch a preemptive strike against it? Who are they? Why would they?

Iraqis are freer today and we are safer. Relax and enjoy it.

(Richard Perle, assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, is a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon on military affairs.)

[sampsonblk]

12. Hah! This guy is a jerk - Good catch!

'Or, "Yes, we destroyed Saddam's regime, but now other dictators will try even harder to develop weapons of mass destruction to make sure they will not fall to some future American preemptive strike."'

Uhhh. YEAH!