How many of you saw Josh Marshall vs Perle, Kaplan and quite frankly an entire panel preconcieved to breastbeat itself on the glory of neo-conservatism?
I thought Josh did pretty good, considering the odds.
Perle was particulrly obnoxious. He insisted that those who did not agree with him had the burdon of proof to prove him wrong. (Remember Ari telling us that it was incumbant on those who believed that Saddam had no WMDs to come forward and tell us where they are?)
Such an argument is so self vindicating that it is impossible to take seriously. Perle made his case in the usuall neocon manner. All who disagree with him are in cahoots to destroy America.
Poor Josh was an atoll of sanity in a pool of naked partisan bloodlust. Would I have prefered a more experienced voice from the left? Absolutely.
Did Josh hold his own in the face of an overwhelmingly rigged 'discussion'? Absolutly.
I dont always agree with Mr Marshall, but he's got a real voice and my complete respect.
What was missing was the obvious. When you insist that you cannot possibly be wrong, you are left in shambles when you are proved wrong. And that is precisely where the neocons are leading us.
Here's the link:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=hudson+pe
rle+republic