David Frum & Richard Perle call out the Democrats

[La_Serpiente]

The two pitbulls on steroids wrote an op-ed (Free Registration Required) to the New York Times today. They try to trash all of the Democratic contenders' foreign policy in it. If you disagree with them, write a letter to the editor here.
Personally, I think every candidate should post a response on their website to these two "morans". Their extremist rhetoric should not be allowed to manifest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Frum and Perle seem oblivious

to what has actually been done in the world to fight terrorism.

Many countries have sent their troops to Afghanistan to try to stabilize it, and produce a country that can be a democratic, independent nation; only the USA and the UK have neglected this, choosing instead to divert troops and materiel to the distraction of invading Iraq, to settle old family scores and obtain lucrative business contracts. Iraq was not involved in terrorism before this; but now it is a breeding ground and target, with bombings at mosques, and the United Nations that Perle and Frum disparage.

The politician who has been most supportive of the Saudis has been George Bush Junior. He allowed the bin Laden family to flee the country, when they might have been helpful in finding Osama bin Laden and his assets; the bin Ladens had financial ties with Bush Junior's old oil company and the Carlyle Group, in which his father is heavily involved.

It's not the Democratic candidates who are risking losing the struggle against terrorism: it's the current President of the United States. The case for regime change in America has never been more apparent.

[Snappy]

2. Al Q

The only thing that may save the pathetic asses of the Neo Fascist from being thrown out is another attack by Al Q. If that happens within the next few months they will postpone any elections and declare Martial Law. Anybody see the film the Siege. It will be like that but no hero to save the Nation.

[Torgo4]

3. Uh-Huh! Here's What Afghanistan CIA Vet Thinks of Perle!

Little Dickie's foreign policy/military shit is pretty weak. Please note from Atrios http://atrios.blogspot.com/ RE; Charlie Wilson's War:


As you read this anecdote, keep in mind that it’s being told by a guy who is a very hardline, hardass anti-communist. His idea of fun is to figure out new and better ways to kill Russians, and at the time this is happening he’s in charge of an incredibly creative, brutal, and effective buildup of arms to kill those Russians in ever greater numbers. But even he thinks Perle and his pals are loons.
Here’s the story:
Their idea was to encourage Soviet officers and soldiers to defect to the mujahideen. As Avrakotos derisively describes it, “The muj were supposed to set up loudspeakers in the mountains announcing such things as ‘Lay down your arms, there is a passage to the West and to freedom.’” Once news of the program made its way through the Red Army, it was argued, there would be a flood of defectors.
....Avrakotos thought North and Perle were “cuckoos of the Far Right”....”What Russian in his right mind would defect to those fuckers all armed to the teeth?” Avrakotos said in frustration. “To begin with, anyone defecting to the Dushman would have to be a crook, a thief, or someone who wanted to get cornholed every day, because nine out of ten prisoners were dead within twenty-four hours and they were always turned into concubines by the mujahideen. I felt so sorry for them I wanted to have them all shot.” The meeting went very badly indeed. Gust accused North and Perle of being idiots....Avrakotos thought that would be the end of the...idea, but he greatly underestimated the political power and determination of this group, who went directly to Bill Casey.
....In spite of the angry complaints, Clair George and everyone else on the seventh floor agreed with Avrakotos’ position. He says that Director Casey even privately told him, “I think your point is quite valid. What asshole would want to defect to these animals?”
But the issue wouldn’t go away. Perle, Raymond, and the others continued to insist that the Agency find and send back to the United States the many Russian defectors they seemed to believe...the mujahideen were harboring. They had visions of a great publicity campaign once these men reached America.
....Avrakotos describes what happened next with the kind of pleasure he feels only upon achieving revenge. It had been almost impossible to locate two prisoners, much less two defectors. The CIA found itself in the preposterous position of having to pony up $50,000 to bribe the Afghans to deliver two live ones. “These two guys were basket cases,” says Avrakotos. “One had been fucked so many times he didn’t know what was going on. The other was an alcoholic.”
....At that point, Avrakotos says, he went to Perle to announce the good news that the Agency had twelve more willing to come over. “I turned the tables on them and demanded they take them all. And they didn’t want to....In all I think we brought three or four more over. One guy ended up robbing a 7-Eleven in Vienna, Virgina.”
How can you trust the judgment of someone who not only proposed an idea like this, but fought long and hard for it in the face of massive ground level evidence that it was absurd? Is it any surprise that someone who thought Russian soldiers would defect if we just set up loudspeakers in the mountains of Afghanistan might also think that governing postwar Iraq would be simple and easy?
Remember this the next time you hear Richard Perle say anything. And then give his opinions all the consideration they deserve.

[reprehensor]

4. Perle, Frum & reprehensor...

My point-by-point response which I posted at the NYT forum...

Well, Kerry could probably defeat either one of you in hand-to-hand combat, so that's pretty tough in my books. The wild rhetoric of Howard Dean? Uh, ad hominem, guys, surely you can do better than that? As if anybody on the planet hasn't been thinking hard about the 'war on terrorism'. Sadly, the direction that the President has taken is being criticized as being unrealistic and in the wrong direction by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, not to mention the Army War College.

And what, precisely, is the United States official definition of 'terrorism'?

If any nation is using the wrong weapons to fight the wrong war, it's the U.S., not the U.N. Just ask Chuck Spinney, career Pentagon analyst. www.d-n-i.net

The 'enemy' is going to wind up being the rest of the planet if America doesn't show some humility pretty soon. The military is currently spread all over the place and moral is low. Recruitment is low. You guys planning a draft or something?

OBL was already well connected with the Afghans. After all, he was a mujahadin, remember the mujahadin? You know, the guys that the U.S. supported for over a decade fighting the commies? Mullah Omar was also a mujahadin fighter. The bulk of the funds directed there by the grace of Ronald Reagan. Another classic example of 'blowback'. Maybe you should be asking Ronnie. Oh, yeah...

If the President is serious about taking the war to the terrorists, why is he in Iraq?

And putting more U.S. troops on the Saudi peninsula is a good idea? Do you not recall what one of Al Qaeda's major recruitment themes is? BTW, conservation is a brilliant idea.

As if the current administration is even flirting with the notion of oil consumption! C'mon! You're killin' me here!

The Dem plan starts with putting new leadership in the nation's capital, kapeesh? Keeps down the blowback.

Uh, 911 happened under W's watch, not Clinton's, despite lots of warnings. Just who is lacking credibility here? If the Bush administration had 'chased down' a couple of terrorists on U.S. soil, 911 would have been just another project Bojinka.

Say, haven't I seen you guys hangin' around the PNAC water-cooler?