Kenneth Adelman Laments "Triumph of Kerryism"

I've posted on PNAC only once from the best of my knowledge, in the context of their "Statement of Principles", and I think never on this Shakespeare spouting neo-conservative. Henry V is one of his favs perhaps? "... we happy few, we band of brothers ... "

Are we "happy" now thanks to folks like Ken Adelman? For more information on Mr. Adelman please consult the International Relations Center's Right Web and also the Center for Media & Democracy's SourceWatch.

Right of the right, Ken Adelman is especially close to Dick Cheney. Infamous for his predictions of an Iraq "cakewalk" in early 2002 and then prematurely gloating back even before the staging of Commander Codpiece's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

With no quarter given, as is his style it appears, Ken Adelman is increasingly willing to attack even Dubyah. The neo-cons aren't going without a fight it appears. The WaPo's Michael Abramowitz serves up "Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush's Foreign Policy" where the following appears:

Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is close to Vice President Cheney, said he believes foreign policy innovation for White House ended with Bush's second inaugural address, a call to spread democracy throughout the world.

"What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do," he said. "This administration prided itself on molding history, not just reacting to events. Its a normal foreign policy right now. It's the triumph of Kerryism."

Mr. Adelman, Bu$hCo mentioned "democracy" so many times for cover. No WMD, a growing insurgency, Iraq's infrastructure ran down already but now increasingly destroyed, civilian casualities, budget busting ruin to the treasury, mounting KIA numbers plus exponentially more wounded, etc. He didn't mean it! You know this dog won't hunt.

I agree Russia and Egypt are backing away from democracy yet they weren't under the past administration. Your "molding" efforts essentially broke the mold in that the U.S. is so bogged down with Iraq that the rest of the world might figure there's little we could do to stop them. The "realist" are back in vogue, which is hardly ideal in that they'll overlook the abuses of regimes if that is in the best interest of America, yet at least they know you can't create democracies by an aggressive military stance. Saudi Arabia's leadership, plus some of the other oil oligarchies that are hardly known for justice, have long been tied to Bu$hCo.

The period since the January speech reveals just a little more. The election of Hamas (Almost guaranteed after Israel was emboldened to do the Gaza pullout despite what the Palestinians begged them to delay on since they couldn't control the area!) was a surprise to Condi Rice but ought to give you an idea that this administration is simply in over its head.

If Bu$hCo was serious about spreading democracy, I think any reasonable person knows you seldom if ever do this via military power. Additionally, teaching others respect for the rule of law is hardly served when this Executive Branch is doing an end run around the law on torture, violating our own privacy laws, repressing the freedom of the press, etc.

Would that Bu$hCo were "a middle of the road" leader as he's likely going to be viewed by history as the poorest in at least the modern era. He is around Buchanan or Pierce levels even now. I'd settle for Daddy Bu$h or Slick Willy on their worst day as "normal diplomacy" seems to be better than no or wrong diplomacy. This simple minded, frat boy, dry drunk, lightweight, arrogant man hasn't the temperment to even muddle through the issues facing our nation right now. You and your type elected this disaster and then created the Iraq invasion so don't blame me/us.

As for the "Kerryism" reference, John Kerry actually served in combat rather than partying at the Diplomat down in Montgomery and campaigning for Mr. Blount. This military veteran understood the limitations and also the reasonable positives of projecting some military power. Senator Kerry authorized Bu$h to move forward, as many Democrats did, with the belief that he'd use some measure of restraint. We know now that Dick Cheny and his merry band of neo-con brothers rushed to war, gaming the intelligence and crushing opposition views as they did.

The good will of most of the world shown to our nation after 9-11 was squandered and I doubt John Kerry would have wasted that rare opportunity. Our allies were pushed aside and openly disrespected. John Kerry would not have abandoned the Clinton administrations's work on North Korea, as flawed as it was, as he was intelligent enough to appreciate the complexity of issues rather than listening to some far right hawks that have rarely if ever even seen war. He would have likely never scared Iran and North Korea into moving forward so assertively with their nuclear programs while at the same time alienating allies and cooperating governments through aggressive unilateralism. That we need the help of other nations now seems obvious but apparently not to Mr. Adelman.

The work of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq was working (obviously!) yet your war machine couldn't wait. Afghanistan was essentially abandoned and the hunt for bin Laden was outsourced. Rummy ignored and even booted military experts that did not want to experiment with his light and fast approach.

The threat of some Iraqi fighting men melting away to fight later as insurgents was dismissed, as was the idea that Iraq could become a magnet for other Islamist. People warning Bu$hCo about the dangers of occupying this land were held up as objects of scorn. Bu$h didn't have the faintest idea of Sunni and Shite (plus the Kurds) tensions and his handlers, your man Dick Cheney is the main one doing the handling of course, didn't want him to know. That Rummy didn't effectively plan for the end game and occupation is a given.

Concern over innocent civilians would not have been ignored by a Kerry administration. John Kerry wouldn't have rushed our men and women into combat lacking adequate body armor or the proper equipment. John Kerry would have never let his White House Counsel, now Attorney General, describe the Geneva Conventions as "quaint". John Kerry would have fired his Defense Secretary long ago for his ineffective leadership yet Abu Ghraib alone would have likely been enough. John Kerry would not have sent a flamethrower like John Bolten to the UN, much less do so over the objections of many in the Senate. John Kerry would not have rewarded Paul Brenner, George Tenet, and Paul Wolfowitz for their disastrous work related to Iraq.

On the Domestic Front, John Kerry would have also respected the limitations to Executive power by working with Congress. Of course if John Kerry (or Al Gore!) were President I expect Congress, if in the hands of the GOP certainly, would place aside their Rubber Stamps and "look the other way" roles of these Bu$hCo years. I truly enjoy comparing statements of the GOP leadership from back in the day with Bill Clinton with their pitiful excuses for Bu$hCo's radical administration yet I digress. I'll just briefly venture off into shooting the messengers over climate change, rewarding Big Pharma and Big Oil, cutting taxes on the Big Mules, ruining the treasury, making radical court appointments, favoring loyalty over competency, pandering to the Dobsonites, spying on Americans while violating FISA, ...

The WaPo article also quoted Danielle Pletka in her role at AEI but left out her/their role with PNAC and other neo-conservative disasters. The piece also did not reference her support for Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. As for her quote, I'm figuring the few enduring souls remaining her "friend", from the tons of folks linked to AEI that remain in the Bu$hCo administration plus others working their conservative magic elsewhere inside the beltway, do think they way she does. They've got to be "true believers" indeed to not see the folly that neo-conservative ideology represents.

Indeed the neo-cons are restless. They have no shame. Every mistake is the fault of another. You'd think the game would be up for most of their foolishness yet the simplicity of their reliance on military power and other forms of American arrogance remain attractive to at least part of our population. This may be especially so with the troubles of the near Middle East. That chaos ought to be Exhibit A to support the indictment of the neo-con fantasy that Iraq clearly was yet these folks will try to flip the weakness into a positive.

Let's not allow them to escape their past errors yielding consequences that we will unfortunately have to deal with long after Bu$hCo has gone back to the ranch. Right now the goal is to start cleaning up this mess in 2006 and then moving toward electing a grown up in 2008. Peace ... or War!