“We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere - The objective was to change the face of the Middle East.” (Wurmser)

Actually - Tony Blair was quite clear - the only reason we went into Iraq, he told Parliament, was to get the wmd. He was asked - as was Dubya - at the time - if there was any other agenda at work. Both said no - until the wmd shockingly failed to manifest its existance.

Wurmser's transition shift from being responsible for the idea - to not being responsible for implementation - was not a very smooth hand washing. This is what happnes when they get lazy and forget to maintain the wmd pretense at all times - thus, directing blame back to Bush. Bush is winning the blame game - the whole world blames the neocons more than Bush. Everyone has the macro and micro reversed.

This except all seems very dodgy - very questionable:
------
“ ”These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy,“ she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn’t Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

”The final decisions were no in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership.“

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

”Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions ..."
--------------------------

This all seems highly contrived - When The Shinseki testified that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq - it was Wolfowitz that shot him down. Wurmser and company did not object to Rumsfeld's numbers until after the invasion plan was well under way. Bolton was known for his beaureucratic triumphs against his boss - even supposedly running some sort of intelligence operation against him.

But - Wasn't Feith actually in charge of post war Iraq planning? Wurmser seems to be trying to walk away from this mess - but if Bush is to be blamed for Deciding, then blame for Advising is also in order.

We also recall that the State Dept. post war plans for Iraq - that muti-volume study series was back then far more similar to what Wurmer's allies are arguing for now. In other words - when the State Dept was doing post war planning, Feith was the one at the Pentagon in charge of post war and they all dismissd the State Dept. plans. Now they are reversing the order of things. This past Friday, Brooks raised his voice against the Bush admin for ignoring advice of Iraq war skeptics back in 2003. This all seems disingenuous. The pro war liberals are just as bad , if not worse - Everyone knew who was President - Everyone now complaining had went into this with eyes wide open

“This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money… We all feel beaten after the past five years… We miss the peace and quiet and writing books ... Now many will resume their writing… Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside.”
~Meyrav Wurmser 12-16-06
Ynet News

“Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted.”
~Meyrav Wurmser 12-16-06
YNet News

Note the double secret irony. The unintentional irony in use of the term 'war' with supposed policy idea - that ironically helped bring aboutan actual real war. Couple that with with unintentional seeming irony of making an actual suggestion ( 'Presto, here's a new an army! Go govern - have a nice day!' ) that seems silly, while maintaining the pretense that it would have worked.

The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq."
~Meyrav Wurmser 12-16-06
Ynet News

“If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran ... If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended.”
~Meyrav Wurmser 12-16-06
YNew News

Those are pretty sweeping claims from Ms. Wurmser - How could anyone ever believe it would be possible to block the vast borders with Iran and Syria? To really block them - you'd have neeed an invasion of over a million and then a million plus boder guard who would place loyalty to Dubya over loyalty to their tribes, etc. Once again - when the sitcom version comes out - the laugh track will have to kick after such things are said because people have forgotten when to laugh. Even our relatively highly paid border guard cannot guard the US Mexican border. Think about that - though the ideologues don't seem to bother thinking these things thru - or they just write that off as a Dobbs thing. But it shows you they are not (to use a favoriter word of the ideolgues) 'serious people,' or they are they are so used to using unchallanged bs they forget reality. Anyway, the 'rebellion' in Iraq would not have ended - she'd just blame Iran etc. Arms are stored everyhwere in that country. And there is no proof that Iran would have been hurt if Syria was 'hit.' She's probably a very smart woman and means well - but she sounds like she's so in thick with her ideology that she sounds out of it - Also, she seems to be suggesting Bush lied when she says everyone knows Hizbollah won - if not lied, then even more deep in denial than she. Do you think she really believes the borders could have been closed in any meaninful sense? What does she mean by defeating Syria? How? Invade? Occupy Damascus?

Re Perle's Grand Square clip. It's hard to improve on that - It's always one of the favorites in Chairman Perle's Book of Sayings. We imagine it's already a part of many art exhibits and performance art shows, posters, t-shirts, etc.

This is not an exact quote , but Flynt Leverette echoed you today by saying: (not a precise quote) “reports that realism and rationality have returned to Mid East policy have been greatly exaggerated.” He was at the New America Foundation w/ the ubiquitous Steve Clemons.

BTW Doc - Be interested to know what you think of “Time” declaring “You” the person of the year. We think they punted on who they really wanted to pick - out of fear of misunderstanding.

“Talk about spunk!”
~Sen. Pat Roberts
CBS News 4-3-03
(Describing Pvt. Jessica
Lynch's legendary ferocity
in resistance,captivity,
and rescue)

They're not just looking to close out the Bush years; Sen. McCain must look like Sir Galahad to them right now. Did you catch him and Sen. Joe today denouncing the ISG report?