I must say it is awfully strange to see liberals embracing the Realist approach to foreign policy after their criticizing it and its support of brutal authoritarian governments throughout the Cold War. My lefty dad and friends of mine have emailed me that essay by Scowcroft and his criticisms of the Iraq war, as if hearing it from George HW Bush's NSA will somehow lead me to think Bush was wrong to get rid of Saddam.

I wonder what it's like for liberals to be like this, I mean utterly intellectually unprincipled, picking up whatever argument that's handy to attack Bush and his policies without even caring that it contradicts something you argued or believed a few years ago.

Its more of the same, Bush is supposed to have engaged in smear tactics against those few brave, underspoken souls who opposed the Iraq War.

On a side note, if Bush lied about wmd and blah blah blah, shouldn't these folks who were lied to suddenly have noticed a document dump in 2002? "Wow, our notions of Iraq changed so much ever since the Bush junta took over."

Back to the smears of Bush; the arguments are so circular, we know Bush was punishing Wilson because Bush punished critics of Bush, and as an example we present: Wilson being punished. In reality, its insane to suggest that people were smeared. The easiest way to make money these days is to write a smear Bush book, you get famous as you make the talk show circuit pimping the book.

Bush is big on the whole turn the other cheek thing, he has no interest in responding to any personal attacks and barely has the energy to respond to substantive attacks.

Of course, if he did respond to these attacks, the MSM would never fufill their common carrier function and tell us about it.

By the way, Laurie Dhue is so much hotter than that French Shiznit.

I must say it is awfully strange to see liberals embracing the Realist approach to foreign policy after their criticizing it and its support of brutal authoritarian governments throughout the Cold War. My lefty dad and friends of mine have emailed me that essay by Scowcroft and his criticisms of the Iraq war, as if hearing it from George HW Bush's NSA will somehow lead me to think Bush was wrong to get rid of Saddam.

M_1,

Is your dad named Andrew Sullivan by any chance? (I kid.)

Personal destruction? Permanent campaign?? Cutting corners on details??? If we didn't know better, one would swear that Joe's writing another book about the Clinton administration.

I read the e-mail in question, and how this weasel can call it a smear is beyond me, except for the fact that many people say things about others that are really more true about themselves.

There is no honor in any corner of the MSM these days. Each time I think that I've seen these slugs at their lowest, they slime down to a new low.

These people are relentless. Do they ever run out of energy?

You can't tell me this surge of propaganda isn't orchestrated starting with Frists investigation and Earle's 11th hour charge for DeLay's indictment. Then they kick up Bush Lied a notch or two.

Sure, Fitzmas put a damper on the whole thing, but they've come back with renewed energy. It's exhausting, though it does make good blog-fodder.

French Chick, all the way. Nothing against Dhue--she's right in my wheelhouse. But French Chick is smokin and tall to boot.

Good point, I forgot to raise it, but if Delay was around, the GOP in congress would be slightly less pussified.

I had the displeasure of actually reading the Klein article. The man is delusional. I don't think there are two sentences in a row anywhere in the Times piece that don't rely on some false premise.

The only trick in the bag of tricks us rethuglicans use that is worse (ok, the worst trick) is the dreaded "reading your words back to you" technique.

Anyone remember that article from a year ago?