From the very beginnings of the nasty-post invasion phase when the colonial hell just beginning should have been clear to all, I was explaining to people that the only propaganda line that would ever, ever really be acceptable within the U.S. doctrine system would be that 'We tried, we gave it our all to give the Iraqis democracy, but, hey, the Iraqis didn't accept our gift and it's time we left them to stew in their own juices.'

Any other reason for leaving ends up blaming the U.S. system which led to the policy, and would also imply that there might be something wrong with the idea of invading and occupying other nations.

The Foreign Policy Establishment cannot let it be concluded that the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment could make a total disaster completely on its own, and they can never allow anyone to think that there's something inherently wrong with violent U.S.-led interventions to change other nations' governments as the FPE sees fit.

John Kerry tried this about 3 years ago, and at the time I pointed out that it was the only excuse for leaving Iraq that Democrats could ever accept.

The Establishment will only accept 'blame Iraq' reasons for leaving and the therefore obvious failure.

That's how it is.

Our assessments are based on our observations as well as on years of study. That experience creates networks of colleagues such as military officers whose off-the-record insights can inform ours and who in the past have often told us when they did not think their strategies were working or could work.

- O'Hanlon

Wow, how scholarly!!! Sure, we can't actually present you with any empirical evidence which you can check against our judgments to determine our correctness.

But, hey, we assure you that our "off-the-record" conversations are spot-on!

Real scholars are occasionally forced to present views (such as in letters sections of journals or media interviews) based on such non-verifiable and non-reviewable sources.

But real scholars make sure, therefore, to caution anyone from making conclusions based on secret and non-systematic evidence.

In contrast, the O'Hanlon et al approach is to say, 'Hey, I have some sketchy evidence which convinces ME of X, so I'm now going to launch myself into every available media forum in order to strongly state the truthfulness of X such that people make policy decisions on it.'

In the interest of open disclosure, I can hereby clearly state that for $300,000, that I, too, will call for the replacement of Maliki by Allawi.

Lobbyists Hired to Press Maliki, Former Premier Sayshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601261.html

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, August 27, 2007; Page A08

Former interim Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, who is trying to put together a new coalition to replace the current Baghdad government headed by Nouri al-Maliki, said yesterday that a powerful Washington lobbying firm is working on his behalf, funded by an Iraqi whom he cannot identify.

Allawi confirmed on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday that Barbour Griffith & Rogers had been hired "to help us advocate our views, the views of the nationalistic Iraqis, the nonsectarian Iraqis."

Allawi called "accurate" reports that Barbour Griffith is to receive $300,000 over six months "but that these figures are really much less than the figures that are being paid by others, our adversaries." Asked the source of the funds, Allawi said, "I cannot unfortunately divulge his name," adding: "He is a supporter of our program."...

...Allawi's hiring of the firm was first reported last week by IraqSlogger.com. A senior adviser to the firm is Philip D. Zelikow, who resigned as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in December.

Another of Barbour Griffith's clients is the Kurdistan Regional Government, according to the company's Web site.

My god, he even credits a blogger. How times have changed.

Who is paying? You'll have to ask Allawi:

funded by an Iraqi whom he cannot identify

That recent Ted Nugent moment asking Obama to "suck on" his 'machine gun' and asking Hillary to please ride his 'machine gun' into the sunset, wasn't that just him expressing his pride that the President selected him to be our nation's chief lawman?

Wherein Attorney Secretary General Chertoff vows that he will not rest until every phone in New Orleans is tapped.

Ron Pauliac: Do you have contacts for these gate manufacturers? I would like to be considered for a position as a Left Gate Keeper. Does it pay well? Are there benefits? Can you disclose this information here, or is it only available in special Masonic code?

Re: El Cid: I want to be a left gatekeeper

Just keep doing what you are doing, helping BushCo by preventing "The Truth" from being reported along with all your "left gatekeeping" friends on George Soros' payroll.

In the mean time, for those who want to take more direct action, I suggest Monkeywrenching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeywrenching

The right wing gatekeepers tried militias and bombing federal buildings and stuff. That didn't work out too well... but maybe we are ready!!! Overthrow the New World Order!!!

-- Ron Pauliac

"Maybe we are ready"?? What, to die in a pathetic death by cop like "Wake Up Sheeple" Bill Cooper? To march around in Fantasy League rebellion like the mid-90's militia twits?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question.

You talk a lot about getting money from George Soros. I'm not yet getting my New World Order paycheck yet, and I need the money.

Tell you what.

If you will finally tell me how to get in on that New World Order cash, I will temporarily withdraw my hobby of putting bar codes on the back of street signs so that the black helicopters sent by Hillary as part of the combined UN / Trotskyist International invasion force can't find their way.

If it helps, I'm actually completely in favor of a New World Order, so long is the new one is actually MORE, rather than LESS democratic, than this World Order. The current World Order sucks.

Hey, by the way, where's your yellow triangle symbol on your boot? The Quebec undercover police got filmed with theirs. Have you been filmed with your police unit yet?

Then, with an election to win, the Republican idiot machine geared up to denounce such truthful reports of the hypocritically homosexually adulterous Craig because that was what they felt would best help The Right.

Now, with Craig in office, the Republican idiot machine has received the hive-mind command that it is in their best interest to feign disapproval at Craig's bathroom forays.

Two months from now they can spin on a dime, change their hive-mind, and come out against any criticism of Craig and no we have never ever said what he did was really that wrong, as long as it seems to advantage The Right.

For The Right, there simply is NO SUCH THING as hypocrisy or irony. None.

What they harshly condemn today they will proudly embody tomorrow. They don't care.