Sunday, November 05, 2006

Perle, Leading Proponent Of Iraq War, Wishes He Knew Then What He Knows Now

A leading proponent of the 2003 Iraq invasion now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'" he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Perle said "you have to hold the president responsible" because he didn't recognize "disloyalty" by some in the administration. He said the White House's National Security Council, then run by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, did not serve Bush properly.

Asked about Perle's comments, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe sarcastically offered, "We appreciate the Monday-morning quarterbacking ..."


Other prominent conservatives criticized the administration's conduct of the war in the article, including Kenneth Adelman, who also served on the Defense Policy Board that informally advised President Bush.

A year before the war, Adelman predicted demolishing Saddam's military power and liberating Iraq would be a "cakewalk." But he told the magazine he was mistaken in his high opinion of Bush's national security team.

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era," he said. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friends of the demwits want you to vote democrap.

7:08 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...
Friends of the demwits want you to vote democrap

While the current perverted, corrupt and hypocritic repukes remain in power, I will vote for the Democraps or independents. When the Democraps start acting like the current perverted repukes, I will again vote for the Republicans or the independents!

10:58 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I don't even know what anonymous was saying. I don't have my infantile crackpot to English translation guide handy.

I mean, is this debate? Angelina dared the conservatives who troll here to come up with rational arguments. Dispute the facts at hand. Defend conservative beliefs. Whatever.

Other than Trinity, the rest of these MLFers sound like drooling idiots, incapable of anything resembling an independent or rational thought.

I join Angelina. I dare the other MLFers to defend conservative beliefs, defend the decisions of Bush or the other conservatives written about here. Something.

What's being offered now is downright laughable.

11:28 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Here is Richard Perle's response to Vanity Fair's deplorable attempt to influence this election by first, mischaracterizing his views, and then publishing them before the election, rather than in January as they had promised...

Richard Perle
"Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

I believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave Iraq, as some are demanding, before the Iraqis are able to defend their elected government. As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.

I told Mr. Rose that as a nation we had waited too long before dealing with Osama bin Laden. We could have destroyed his operation in Afghanistan before 9/11.

I believed we should not repeat that mistake with Saddam Hussein, that we could not responsibly ignore the threat that he might make weapons of mass destruction available to terrorists who would use them to kill Americans. I favored removing his regime. And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”

I believe the president is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path."

11:33 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

none of that counters the quotes cited in the JABBS piece. perle's quotes have to do with competence in managing the Iraq War, not the reasons to go to war, or the greater threat of terrorism.

Sure Perle is mad that this came out now. He may have a legit beef (we'd have to hear Vanity Fair's side of the story, or see a signed contract saying comments wouldn't be released before the election.)

12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I am saying hairpie is that your friends the terrorists want everyone to vote democrat. I know some of the words we over the characters in that web post but I thought you might be able to look at pictures and figure it out.

7:53 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

More whining about media bias. Perle's an idiot, and as usual, all he has to answer back is "media bias." STFU already.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”

This is such a highly speculative argument to be worthless. It is a historical revisionist, Bush apologist dribble to once again attempt to justify this mess in Iraq.
This statement could be applied to any one of many nefarious dictatorships in the world such as Iran. To place this in proper context, why weren't such concerns applied to North Korea or Iran, further along in any terrorist threat to the U.S. than Sadaam ever was? Or why wasn't Afghanistan home of the terrorist that had really attacked us taken out first?
Please enough already!

12:33 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous (the lib) said...
"This is such a highly speculative argument to be worthless."

You are so utterly clueless it's positively scary.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The documents in the on-line archive -- which Santorum and Hoekstra set up but then had to shut down parts of after IAEA complaints led the Bush Administration to wonder about national security -- include one that the conservative media have harped on, as well as Santorum.

It's titled "progress report, circa 1995" and Hannity, et al, have suggested that this confirms that Saddam had a nukes program well after the 1991 Gulf War.

What Hannity, et al, won't say is that the information in the report is dated. It was, essentially a "historical document."

Hannity, et al, won't also say anything about how haphazard it was to put Iraqi documents on the Internet, in these archives, explaining how to make ricin and serin. Oops! Way to go, Ricky.

1:52 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

I know some of the words we over the characters in that web post but I thought you might be able to look at pictures and figure it out.


Is this English? When did Borat become part of the Mark Levin fanclub?

I don't have my infantile crackpot to English translation guide handy. Can someone else translate this gibberish?

1:54 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

What I am saying hairpie is that your friends the terrorists want everyone to vote democrat. >>

Actually, nearly every source outside of Sean Hannity has said that the Osama videos leaked right before the 2004 election were designed to help keep George W. Bush in power.

There's no actual evidence suggesting the "terrorists" want the Democrats to win, in spite of Dick Cheney's arguments.

1:55 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

Both Bush and Cheney have gone on record as saying that if they knew then what they know now (Saddam’s Iraq no longer had WMD and there were no operational links or support of al Qaeda by Saddam and the level of opposition from insurgents and the resulting loss of US and Iraqi life) they would still go ahead with the Iraq invasion. As Cheney’s says, “Full steam ahead.” And as Bush used to say, but now denies that he said, “Stay the course.” Republicans in control of Congress wholeheartedly support Bush’s handling of the war and in fact the House Majority Leader said that “Donald Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years.” That’s really what the decision in the November 7 election is all about. Is the current leadership what we the American people want to continue in those leadership roles or not.

If we want to continue the current course we vote for Republicans and if we want a change in our government we vote for Democrats. It’s that simple. Vote the way you want the country to be led.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

rob of wilmington, del. said... >>What I am saying hairpie is that your friends the terrorists want everyone to vote democrat. >>

Actually US Intelligence Agencies in June intercepted an al-Qaeda communiqué that proves that al-Qaeda wants the Republican Party to win the 2006 Midterm Elections. “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” wrote “Atiyah,” one of bin Laden’s top lieutenants. If Democrats win and can decrease the US troop presence in Iraq it will hurt the terrorists’ best recruiting tool: encouraging angered Muslims to fight US and kill our troops in Iraq.

Read more here.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

Sorry I guess that was that brave poster, Anonymous, who said that lie about terrorists wanting Democrats to win. As it turns out the terrorists really want courageous Anonymous's friends the Republicans to win. A vote for a Republican is a vote for Osama.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (the lib) said...
"This is such a highly speculative argument to be worthless."

Trinity said. You are so utterly clueless it's positively scary.

Anoymous (the "lib"):
Why am I positively clueless? Why was Sadaam a worse threat than any other dictatorship, including Iran and N. Korea, then and now?

Do what I did and provide some substantiation to your claim, or else your comments are worth less than the black backdrop of this blog.

2:50 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
Here is Richard Perle's response to Vanity Fair's deplorable attempt to influence this election by first, mischaracterizing his views, and then publishing them before the election, rather than in January as they had promised...

Trinity - Have repukes ever done anything like misquoting what someone said, totally turned something positive into a negative, ever pulled out one single statement to tell an entirely different story, taken somthing out of context to twist the entire story into something realy bad or ever gone against their word?? Oh,Oh Oh sorry Trinity, I forgot that is not posible for the pure and perfect repukes that live by very high moral values!

5:07 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...
What I am saying hairpie is that your friends the terrorists want everyone to vote democrat. I know some of the words we over the characters in that web post but I thought you might be able to look at pictures and figure it out.

How is it that repukes are talking to the "terrorist" to be able to know how they want American citizens to vote??

5:12 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I read claims above that the terrorists want the Democrats to win in tommorrow's elections.
Here's the real story.
The terrorists got more than they could ever have imagined by crashing airplanes in the Pentagon and the WTC.
The 9-11 terrorists have caused the Republican-dominated government to drag the U.S. into a unrelated quagmire in Iraq, weakening our military and taking many more lives and costing many more hundreds of billions of dollars than 9-11.
The 9-11 terrorists have caused the Republican-dominated government to rob U.S. citizens of their hard-fought freedoms while developing a culture of fear and paranoia.
The 9-11 terrorists have caused the Republican-dominated government to take the focus off terrorism sponsors such as North Korea and Iran, allowing such countries to make progress on nuclear weapon programs.
The 9-11 terrorists have caused the Republican-dominated government to allow for Al Queda to grow into an even larger global organization from which it has already waged deadly attacks in Spain and London.

I could go on and on about how the Republicans have allowed the 9-11 terrorists to succeed beyond their wildest dreams.


The terrorists know that if Democrats were in charge, they would never have allowed themselves to have been so easilly manipulated into destroying America from within.

9:01 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"The 9-11 terrorists have caused the Republican-dominated government to allow for Al Queda to grow into an even larger global organization from which it has already waged deadly attacks in Spain and London."

Earth to twot! Terrorism acts by Islamo extremists have been on the rise worldwide for decades. Before we even went into Iraq, there was an al Qaeda presence in over 70 countries, including Iraq itself. (Falluja)

So you can carry on and spout the liberal talking points, but you sound like a naive, uninformed dope, as do most libs when they talk about this problem.

Our counter-terrorism programs have been effective in making it more difficult for these radical Islamo-Facists to coordinate and finance their attack plans. Not to say that they won't succeed one day, but despite libs such as yourself, we are doing our best to protect our citizens from such an attack. Not in your name, of course. We get that.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Enlightenment said...

Speaking of Richard Perle and the rest of the Project for a New American Century (P.N.A.C.)...

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
still more debunking Poopular Mechanics:
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:

Poopular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:

Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
The pyroclastic wave (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
Where the hell was the Air Force?
More about the Air Force impotence question:
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
Tracking the “hijackers”:
“Hijacker” patsies:
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
No Arabs on Flight 77:
Flight manifests (tell me if you find any Arabs):
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:

4:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares