First, thank you for writing “How Would A Patriot Act?” — I’m encouraging as many people as possible to read it. And thanks also to FDL posters who first brought Unclaimed Territory and your book to my attention. I’ll get right to my question. I’m curious if you’ve read this document:

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

This report has become the de facto foreign policy play book for this administration. From that document (emphasis added):

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.“

A year after this report was written, in what may truly be one of the world’s most amazing coincidences, the neocons were handed their “new Pearl Harbor” — all wrapped up in a bow on 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden. Suddenly, a window of opportunity opened for the neocons and they wasted no time in driving a Mac truck straight through the middle of it.

I ask because for me the PNAC document was an “Aha” moment. It was the moment I knew this administration was definitely going into Iraq. And their reasons for doing so had much more to do with “forward operating bases” and “global hegemony” than with an evil dictator, torture chambers, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or freedom and democracy for the Iraqis. You indicate in your book that you initially gave the president “the benefit of the doubt” about Iraq so I’m guessing you were not familiar with the PNAC report prior to the US invasion of Iraq. But I believe future historians will point to this as a key document when they attempt to explain the behavior of this administration. This document, in many ways, enshrines Straussian thinking. That so many of the president’s inner circle are followers of Leo Strauss explains much of how this administration operates.

From http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

“…Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”

This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,”The people are told what they need to know and no more.” While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of ‘Leo Strauss and the American Right’ (St. Martin’s 1999).

According to Drury, Strauss had a “huge contempt” for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

[…]

Not surprisingly, Strauss’ attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,” Drury wrote in her book. “Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added).”

“Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy,” of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars…

It seems to me that this political doctrine — that only the elite class can rule, that the “inferior” classes must be deceived, that stability can be achieved only by perpetual external threat, that religion is a tool of the state — is clearly the source of the administration’s hubris (and Bush’s claim to perpetual “war powers”). Until this doctrine is thoroughly discredited and all who worship at its alter are removed from power, I just don’t see how things can get better.

Glenn:

First, thank you for writing “How Would A Patriot Act?” and thanks also to FDL posters who first brought Unclaimed Territory and your book to my attention.

I’ll get right to my question. I’m curious if you’ve familiar with:

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

This report has become the de facto foreign policy play book for this administration. From that document (emphasis added):

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.“

A year after this report was written, the neocons were handed their “new Pearl Harbor” — all wrapped up in a bow on 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden. Suddenly, a window of opportunity opened for the neocons and they promptly drove a Mac truck through it.

I ask because it was when I read this document that I knew this administration was going into Iraq and that their reasons had nothing to do with evil dictators, freedom, torture chambers, democracy for the Iraqis or Weapons of Mass Destruction. You indicate in your book that you initially gave the president “the benefit of the doubt” about Iraq so I’m guessing you were not familiar with the PNAC report prior to the US invasion of Iraq. But I believe future historians will point to this document, as well as the teachings of Leo Strauss when they attempt to explain the bizarre behavior of this administration.

From http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

“…Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”

This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,”The people are told what they need to know and no more.” While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of ‘Leo Strauss and the American Right’ (St. Martin’s 1999).

According to Drury, Strauss had a “huge contempt” for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

[…]

Not surprisingly, Strauss’ attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,” Drury wrote in her book. “Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added).”

“Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy,” of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars…

It seems to me that this political doctrine — that only the elite can rule, that the masses must be deceived, that stability can be achieved only by perpetual external threat, that religion is a tool of the state — is clearly the source of the administration’s hubris (and Bush’s claim to perpetual “war powers”). And this doctrine must be thoroughly discredited and destroyed before things can get much better.

Outstanding: and coupled with a presidential pardon being ‘absolute’, EXCEPT in issues of impeachment. Correct me if I’m wrong (please!!!), but for as long as I’ve been following La Plame Affair, and the pardon mantra, I’ve felt if they could quash this, they would have quashed it a long time ago. Someone wrote about Fitzgerald’s ‘firewalls’ slowly coming down: I think they’re slowly going up. Infact, here’s my theory in a nutshell: this is simply about integrity at this point; Fitzgerald, the “strict Constitutionalist”, is not going allow his credo to be shredded by the cowboy bungler. End of story. And Godspeed to him.

WayneMadsenReport believes the entire raid was conducted as a ‘warning shot across the bow’. I believe there is some merit to this analysis. As Sybil Edmunds (the ‘most gagged woman in America’) basically said way back when ‘the corruption is everywhere, rampant and at the highest levels’, I’m led to believe this ’sealing of documents’, when ‘unsealed’, will reveal a cache of info. ‘hither-to-unbeknownst-before’ (i.e. ‘manufactured evidence’) which implicates every democrat ‘of note’ in every concievable way. This makes sense when one considers the ‘zero-desire to initiate impeachment’ malaise so benevolently aired by the spineless ones in the city. Sadly, corruption is not bipartisan.

Musts been a greatgrandaddy.

And it’s especially painful that those holes have been carved out from apparent testimony and evidence given to Fitz by his former boss and former co-workers.

The “Sergeant Schultz” defense works only when the prosecutor isn’t allowed the time to break it down by interviewing witnesses and persons of interest. This is why Fitz has taken as long as he has to make his case. He’s at the end game now with Libby; Libby’s going to thrash a bit, but he’s a 200-pound fish on Fitz’ 500-pound-test line. He’s stuck.

here’s what I see, Fitz intros the clipping, scooter calls a rebuttal witness (not cheney), then Fitz calls cheney to rebut the rebuttal

could Fitz force cheney to the stand on this very limited issue (the origin of the annotations) without violating cheney’s 5th amendment protections ???

Yeah, this is a dead thread, but screw it.
someday I am going to want to hear the story of that annotated NYT finding it’s way in to the hands of Fitz

Here’s your answer: (page 4 of the 5/24 filing)
While defendant testified before the grand jury that he did not recall seeing the copy of the annotated Wilson Op Ed until it was shown to him by the FBI in the fall of 2003

Bwahahaha! The FBI had it all along, so Fitz has known about it since he got the job.

Look up “busted” in the dictionary, Scooter’s picture is there.