Balkinization: Excuse me, waiter, this wasn't the war I ordered.

Excuse me, waiter, this wasn't the war I ordered.

David Rose offers a peek at his Vanity Fair article on neo-con buyer's remorse about the war they so eagerly sought.

Interestingly several of the subjects interviewed blame President Bush for being incompetent, unserious, or unprincipled, but Michael Ledeen at AEI offers the most interesting and bizarre explanation of the disconnect between neo-con hopes and reality. He blames the ladies: "Ask yourself who the most powerful people in the White House are. They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes." (Ledeen offers no opinion on any feelings of love traveling between Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the people actually running the war.) This sounds like a new self-help book by Robin Norwood: Women Who Love Presidents Too Much, and The Wars They Screw Up.

Posted 2:20 PM by JB [link]

Comments:

Read that one yesterday, can't say which of the blogs linked to it. But it was depressing. It's not the idea of illegal imperialist meddling with sovereign nations that's been repudiated in the eyes of these "leaders," it's just the implementation of their evil agenda at the hands of their chosen executive. Sickening, actually. PNAC principles still prevail in the seats of power; they just want to put another person in the driver's seat before they try again.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:53 PM

Robert,

Please tell me from PNAC's statement of principles, what is exactly so "evil."

Have you even read it? Don't give me crap about what you "think" really goes on. People can always speak and act differently. But, that is a different issue for now.

I am dumbfounded as to what is so objectionable in their statement of principles - let alone "evil."

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 9:14 PM

humblelawstudent: Have you even read it? Don't give me crap about what you "think" really goes on. People can always speak and act differently. But, that is a different issue for now.

Who do you think you are, humblelawstudent? It is unacceptable to address human beings in such a rude and disrespectful manner. By such remarks you insult not only who you direct them at, but those who operate this site, who contribute to the discussion, or visit the site for any reason. You choose to style yourself as a law student. Are you really? When you disagree with your colleagues or professors, do you behave similarly? I doubt it. If I am correct, you are capable acting appropriately, and I urge you to do so henceforth.

All the best,

# posted by

Thomas : 2:02 PM

Thomas,

Lol, you are kidding right? I may have been a bit snarky, but it is hardly outrageous conduct.

For someone attempting to "scold me," let me make a suggestion. When attacking someone because you think they wrote innapropriately, litte quips like "are you actually a law student" only make you look hypocritical.

And if saying "crap" gives you a heart attack, then get over it. The professors on this site call the Bush administration everything up to Hitler (well they don't call him Hitler, just carefully worded analogies to his "practices"). I've hardly done so.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 10:51 PM