Perle Cites Errors in Iraq, Urges Power Transfer
PARIS (Reuters) - Richard Perle, a leading Pentagon adviser and architect of the U.S. war to topple Saddam Hussein, said the United States had made mistakes in Iraq and that power should be handed over to the Iraqis as fast as possible.
And in an interview with the French (yes, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys) newspaper Le Figaro no less!
Does Ann Coulter know about this? Do none dare call it treason?
Actually, the fractures on the right over the Iraq fiasco are beginning to spread quickly now. George Will has had one foot outside the reservation for several weeks now. His ideological clone, Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton, is off it completely.
And now even the neocons are starting to put a little daylight between themselves and the administration, as in this editorial in The Weekly Standard by Bill "I think the American people ... are going to have great tolerance for more casualties" Kristol and Robert Kagan:
We believe the president and his top advisers understand the magnitude of the task. (But of course they don't, really, otherwise why write the frickin' editorial?) That is why it is so baffling that, up until now, the Bush administration has failed to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq commensurate with these very high stakes.
Perhaps the neocons have heard the rumors that the administration has a "bug out" contigency plan ready to go -- despite Shrub's tough talk last night. Perhaps they feel a need to make things a little hot for the president -- to convince him that it's too late now to escape quickly from Iraq.
Which is probably true. As others have already pointed out (even Tom Friedman now grasps the point), when the administration disbanded the old Iraqi Army, it destroyed the only cohesive national organization in Iraq that wasn't owned lock, stock and gun barrel by the Baath Party. Like Cortez, Shrub has burned his boats.
But this kind of public pressure creates a potentially big PR problem for the White House. Fire from the right tends to legitimize the idea that things have gone badly wrong in Iraq. This gives cover to the media (which is already in full Vietnam-deja-vu-mode) and to the Democrats, who can quite rightly say they're only asking the same questions that many good Republicans are also asking about the administration's strategy -- or lack thereof.
Howard Dean is already playing this game, to good effect -- although he runs the risk of alienating his core base if he becomes too much a cheerleader for a bigger, bolder war effort. Apparently, it's a risk he's willing to take to solidify his front-runner status and disarm his critics in the Democratic Party establishment.
Bush, on the other hand, is the establishment -- which isn't always a comfortable place to be in the modern Republican Party. Like the Borg, the GOP usually present a smooth, seamless front to the rest of the world -- the 11th commandment and all that. It's creepy, Orwellian even, but it's effective.
But when the solid front fails -- as it did for George Bush Sr. in the summer of 1992 -- the results can be disastrous. Ironically, because the Republicans usually keep their fights in the bedroom where the kids can't hear, their public disputes tend to turn both noisy and nasty. It's like they've never learned to keep their voices down when little ears can hear.
The White House needs to do what it does so well: Clamp down on internal dissent. Kristol is outside their reach, but Perle they can squash like a bug. Let's see if the Justice Department or the Pentagon Inspector General opens a serious investigation into Perle's business practices. Let's see what happens to those corporate consulting fees.
But even now, I'm not sure the Bushies realize how vulnerable they could be if an Iraq meltdown triggers a round of internal GOP finger pointing during next year's campaign. Old wounds could get gouged open again in a hurry. The Commander in Chief needs to tighten up; impose some discipline on the GOP troops -- like he did to the ones in Iraq.
The knives aren't out yet, but hands do appear to be reaching for hilts -- just in case. Beware the Ides of March, George.
Update 8/28 11:00 AM ET: Juan Cole, a very well informed history professor at the University of Michigan, suggests Perle's outburst was directed not at the White House but at the State Department and the CIA -- another salvo in the neocons' endless war of attrition against Colin Powell and George Tenet.
This may well be true. But the timing -- and the veiled nature of Perle's attack --still adds to the impression that the hawks are starting to bicker among themselves. This is almost beginning to resemble an honest debate about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq, which is the last thing the administration needs or wants.
The problem with the neocons -- as with most intellectuals who get involved in politics -- is that they don't know when to shut up and follow their marching orders. Which means they may yet be Shrub's undoing.
You better believe the Bushites are working on a "get the hell out of Iraq before the election" plan. Getting four more years is all they care about. Does anyone actually believe they would allow this current situation to go on and on through the campaign. No they won't. Whether he hides behind the will of the Merkan people to get out, or declares victory (again) and skips out, literally gets blown out, or finds a way to blame Clinton and skips, whatever, they are not in it for the long haul. It was supposed to be a quick win and on to the next.
You better believe the Bushites are working on a "get the hell out of Iraq before the election" plan.
Well if so, it's going to be way beyond funny to watch them try to weasel their way out of all their "stay the course" "noble cause" rhetoric. I swear I'm gonna publish a BOOK of choice quotes if they do that.
Looks like the WH is indeed bugging out. Here's an interesting trial balloon:
U.S. Weighs U.N. Command in Iraq, but With a Condition
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/international/worldspecial/27CND-DIPL.html?ex=1377403200&en=f1936fd8860660c4&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
So Bush calls in the U.N.to 'aid in the reconstruction' of Iraq.
It won't take much for Rove to spin it as 'we did all the hard work while everyone else sat back' and 'if it weren't for Bush's determination Saddam would still be in power etc. etc...'
The sheep in this country won't even notice as we remove ourselves from the mess and slip out of country leaving the mess in the U.N.'s hands.
"stay the course" "noble cause" rhetoric
Don't forget Fearless Leader's "Total victory in the war on terrorism." Biden and Hagel, on NewsHour last night, both said "WTF does he mean by that!?"
I wonder if this is some neo-con psych job or if Perle is actually starting to distance himself from the coming disaster - only the latest rat to desert a sinking ship.
The tipping point in the Watergate scandal came when senior Republicans started to desert Nixon.
AIP affiliated Neo-cons causing all this mess could probably care less what happens to President Bush at this point. They got pretty much all they wanted, that is : national regression in Iraq, plans for dino juice to flow directly to Isreal, and a Syria, S.A., and Iran that know where all the do-not-cross lines in the sand are drawn. They used this president like the empty vessel that he obviously is, and are now ready to cast him aside. Too bad for all of us. It's just the way I see things. I'm probably totally wrong.
Looks like the WH is indeed bugging out. Here's an interesting trial balloon:
U.S. Weighs U.N. Command in Iraq, but With a Condition
I read this a little differently -- I think it's a trial balloon sent up by Powell and the quasi-multilateralists in hopes of salvaging something from this latest fiasco at the U.N. Security Council. But I don't think it has anything to do with any "bug out" contigency plan.
Even if the mission in Iraq was put under "UN Command" -- which won't happen -- it would still be an overwhelmingly a U.S. operation. Having the U.N. in nominal command actually could make it harder for the Bushies to bug out, since it would require them to ignore the sponsoring UN resolution, defy the nominal commander on the ground and pick up and split - all in the full glare of worldwide publicity.
I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, but it seems like an unnecessary complication if all they want to do is get out. Better to just pick an ex-Iraqi general and say, "You da man now. Here's a few thousand semi-trained policeman and a battalion of infantry. Have a nice life."
Which may very well be how things turn out.
If the NeoCons are bugging out of Iraq it may put a serious dent in the quest for Empire. But maybe they aren't interested in holding turf: just in blowing any organized opposition government to Jeebus, pillaging the oil rights, and hiring thugs to keep the faucet open.
I hate to go off topic but this is too much.
Better get your order in early.
If I were one of the Bushmen, I'd be thinking real seriously about hunkering all the troops down in a large enclave in the Kurd-controlled section of Iraq, a region where the US is pretty much guaranteed a perpetual welcome, since US military protection guarantees the Kurds some sort of autonomy.
Then the US could build a big wall around it, declare victory and go home. They could use this as their Middle Eastern base to replace Saudi Arabia. They wouldn't get the control over the oil pipeline that they'd been fantasizing about, but since they always publicly denied this as a motive, it would be possible to let it go.
But at some point, they've gotta be thinking about cutting their losses and just getting the hell out of there with as much "nobility" as possible before the body-bag count/military morale losses start to create serious domestic problems.
No chance they'll abandon plans for a pipeline, that was the whole impetus from the get-go. Same deal with the Tajik pipeline through Afghanistan. It was awarded to an Argentinian firm even though the Bushies hosted the Taliban in Houston in 1999 to negotiate for the rights. The Bushies lost and allegedly threatened the Taliban... and the rest conveniently unfolded for the neo-con crusade for oil in the Mid-East.
if a guy like pinkerton has bailed, and he has, then bush is in a world of trouble. pinkerton is an old bush the 1st flunky isn't he?
I don't have a crystal ball, but I can't quite imagine how BushCo could bail out before November '04 and not have a huge PR disaster on their hands; they strike me as more likely to go after another target, say Iran or North Korea to divert the masses ("let's all rally around the Chief").
As to the UN, I doubt France, Germany and the USSR are eager to step into the quagmire. The Russians have their own mess in Chechnya, and the French in Ivory Coast. And the Germans wouldn't commit with sufficient force.
Nah, I think we're gonna have to crawl through sewers of shit before we see the end of the tunnel.
Of course there are many things I found very interesting about this insightful post, but this quote below by Perle in the Yahoo article is by far one the more interesting things I want to comment on.
"Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately," he said.
Gee, Mr. Perle, I thought you did consult with Iraqi's in exile that assisted you in the post war planning. Now, who was it that was selling you that line of BS that you bought hook line and sinker about flower throwing Iraqi's greeting our troops as liberators? I see the finger of blame that always points away from Bushco now pointing at Perle's pre-invasion best buddy, Ahmed Chalabi and his gang from the Iraqi National Congress. Isn't it funny how with this administration, it's always someone else's fault. Don't get me wrong, Chalabi probably did give incorrect information, but who where the fools to believe him because he said what they wanted to believe/hear in the first place.
All this "noble" rot we've been hearing of late, all this "there will be no retreat" rhetoric, might just presage our eventual withdrawl. It doesn't ring of "finest hour" resolve, does it?
But that notion competes with another Bush characteristic, that of sticking his head in the sand while praising the glory of the sky. A compliant Congress and obliging press enabled this behavior his first two years in office, so he's unlikely to give up the habit soon.
Either way, Bush is now fighting on the doubters' turf. But despite this, and despite the administration's true intentions toward withdrawl (whatever those may be), the coming year will bring further chaos, violence and death, and no self-rule for Iraqis.
Bremer now says that oil sales won't match even the depressed pre-war levels until October 2004. Continued geurilla warfare means electricity service will be sporadic at best. Corporations are probably too nervous to participate fully in the "privatization" of Iraq's economy, but the neocon fundamentalists are ideologically opposed to the idea of state-run industry, which means Iraqis will continue to remain unemployed, disempowered, angry about the present and anxious about the future.
The law of entropy is the only law now being enforced in Iraq.
Bruce: AIP affiliated Neo-cons causing all this mess could probably care less what happens to President Bush at this point. They got pretty much all they wanted, that is : national regression in Iraq, plans for dino juice to flow directly to Isreal, and a Syria, S.A., and Iran that know where all the do-not-cross lines in the sand are drawn.
I agree that the neocons don't have any attachment to GWB except as a useful tool. But, I don't see how our bugging out of Iraq will advance their agenda. The oil contracts won't be worth the paper they're printed on without the U.S. Army to back them up. Any pro-U.S. puppet goverment won't last a month without us to prop them up, and their ain't gonna be no oil after the country descends into complete chaos. Not to mention, they'll be completely discredited at home.
Now that I think of it, these dudes have never been fond of fact-based rational thought, so I can totally see how they could come up with a fantasy where pulling out of Iraq will encourage dominoes of democracy to fall all over the region. Yeesh.
The Bushies are just going to get out.
They'll claim they did everything they said they were going to do -- who is going to check on them, besides a few lefty bloggers? -- it was a huge success, and it's time to bomb someone else.
If the UN can be suckered into taking over, so much the better. Make it a trend: Bush bombs, the UN member state pay to clean up. What could be better, from Karl Rove's perspective?
Well done, Billmon!!!
You always come up with some of the best 'This Just In' posts.
My 2 cents. Bush is getting ready to stand 'with great noblity' atop the berm protecting Halliburton Uber Alles Base - our latest monument to an invasion of a foreign country.
The 'Berm' is In -- The 'Aircraft Carrier' is, ummm, no longer operative!!!
.
There is one way to put off the impending PR meltdown to all their (as in the Conintern, a phrase I'm coming to use more often, and the corporate media) satisfactions: Simply start another war. BushCO is already hinting at it, and this seems like a likely option, since they have no grip on reality, and don't realize it's simply not possible.
Perle straying from the reservation? Or test marketing the next PR campaign? My money would be on the latter.
I don't know ... when Perle says that power should be handed over to the Iraqis, who exactly does he mean? The Shia clerics? I don't think so. My money is on some puppet like Chalabi, or a junta like the pathetic "Governing Council" acting as a front. I don't see someone like Perle having a sudden attack of democracy.
They'll just have the next war if that's what they're going to do. They'll pull troops out of Iraq, putting the soldiers still there even more in harm's way after installing a Karzai-alike interim president. They'll have their war, Rummy will proclaim all is well, that we have enough troops, etc., and that will be that.
Bush approval rating 100%, just like Saddam did in that plebescite he had just before the war.
Of course it'll be riotously abysmal incompetance all the way, and something disasterous is bound to happen on the road to ruin (probably something that really hurts the average American, but doesn't manage to touch the golden 1%)...
Is Perle reading Salam Pax and Riverbend? I've offered to donate money to a political party of their choice. If there's any hope of democracy in Iraq, it's middle class professionals like these two that will need to be in on it.
Italics And in an interview with the French (yes, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys) newspaper Le Figaro no less!
Funny, I just had a conversation with our second"daughter" Soizic, who's just returned back here to Ontario from Avignon, France.
Three guesses what's the French insult-du-jour?
--- 'americain'!
glenstonecottage
st. catharines, ON
billmon, I just realized this goes hand-in-glove with Sunday's post on the chiefwiggles blog:
http://chiefwiggles.blog-city.com/read/198566.htm
"You might recall the generals I worked with for 3 months down at the POW camp. Well, some very exciting things are happening that I thought I should bring you up to speed on. So many great things are beginning to take shape regarding the generals."
It seems pretty likely that Perle has a bunch of likely "temporary military leaders" in the bullpen, waiting for their chance to lead Iraq to democracy.
I do think that if the shrapnel from an exploiting Iraq policy cuts Bush, the blood in the water will cause the sharks to circle for the kill. He is not that important to them. However, for some of the radical right, it's not Bush and it's really not a democratic Iraq or not even the oil that they care about, for some of the especially greedy, Iraq looks like it could be too expensive and could damage their ability to get rich, and for some of the more fundamentalist, they are looking for the endgame and if Iraq collapses, then this might help even more. Is Bolton one of the God-seekers? He certainly is the warmonger. What about Perle? These guys all think they have created a winning coalition. One that they can control. But the situation in Iraq and the middle east are wildly out of anyone's control (except perhaps for OBL who is probably paying George money for doing such a fine job creating the abyss everyone is facing now).
"Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately," he said. Perle in the Yahoo article.
This is new blame it on State Department line. Saw Kristol use it on Fox. State and Powell are to blame not Defense and Rummy.
So if this is the "it's all Powell's fault", then I guess we get to get the real diplomats in charge. Welcome Newt Gingrich, diplomat extraordinaire.
Trial balloon? Bush leaving his wet, bloody towels on the floor for somebody else to pick up? A way to once again blast the UN if it DOES take over and the situation doesn't improve?
Man, the Freepers must be changing their underwear every five minutes over this.
We'll know the fall of this band of goons is underway not when these defections occur (they've been happening all along as the adults realized they weren't going to be allowed to keep the ship afloat) but when scores start getting settled. The neocons and the bush junta had to step on a lot of toes within the GOP to gain and hold power.
This Ted Rall piece is incendiary, but I wonder if it might be a widely held view in two years...after hundreds of dead soldiers, and a few atrocity scandals.
The gist: we're the bad guys. The RPG shooters are Iraqi patriots.
I think this country's about to be riven like nothing since 1968.
Posted by: Al
...when Perle says that power should be handed over to the Iraqis, who exactly does he mean? The Shia clerics? I don't think so.
Hey, Saddam's still available, isn't he? Rumsfeld knows him and he's got a proven track record of keeping Iraqi oil flowing and stamping on fundamentalists and terrorists (like the Kurds). The only itsy-bitsy problemette with that idea is the International Criminal Court who'd like to get their legal claws into the old mass-murdering bastard but that could easily be fixed by giving him American citizenship and automatic immunity.
Maybe Perle is worried that the French government may give him trouble over his vacation house in Provence.
Sooo... We've got a "Bug Out" plan, but we didn't bother to make a plan for going in?????
Watch out!!!
Perle and his bunch never do anything which is in the best interests of America. There is another less-obvious agenda at play here. As many before have said, the neocons would gladly sacrifice Bush in order to achieve their ultimate goal. It's a case of issues over individuals.
So what is that goal? Destabilization of the Middle East which allows Israel to become the de facto, if not de jure, ruler of the area with America as its guard poodle. So first, the neocons will get Congress to force Bush to recall our troops from Iraq, and then use them elsewhere -- probably Syria and Iran (note they have no interest in N. Korea, which is the first big clue). The neocons don't care if Bush wins or loses in 2004, only that they accomplish their goals of an all-powerful Israel and the destruction of the Constitution of the United States by the time he gets voted out. The oil money is just icing on the cake.
I can only hope I am wrong here.
5{ k Rove is too worried about bad PR if they up and pull out. He can count on the Liberal Media to spin it any way they are told to. It's a lot harder to spin two-three dead GI's per day. Face it, Merkans are going to be demanding a withdrawal in a few more months so, just as the public went along with the invasion, they'll be happy to be out no matter how. As for Oil, its pretty obvious that the grand plan of exploiting the Iraqi oil is totally at the mercy of 18 year old Iraqis with RPG's.
Should have been: I don't think Rove is too worried about bad PR.
"AIP affiliated Neo-cons causing all this mess could probably care less what happens to President Bush at this point. They got pretty much all they wanted . . . . They used this president like the empty vessel that he obviously is, and are now ready to cast him aside."
Posted by: bruce at August 27, 2003 05:26 PM
------------------------------------
I love the image of Bush as Golem, but I think the pop metaphor to keep in mind is one of those heist-gone-wrong movies. The assembled all-star team of thieves all came in with their own agendas, but were happy to work together because the heist worked to all of their private advantages.
Now that the robbery has been botched--the jewels are glass, the cops are on the trail, Lefty's been shot and is screaming not to be left behind--everyone is scrambling to get out alive and with as much of what they wanted as they can. Get ready for double-crossing, double-dealing, score-settling, recriminations, and denounciations.
If this were on celluloid, I'd say pass the popcorn. In real life, and in real time, however, it's just too awful to watch.
i am loving this!! since november 2000, i have been waiting for bush&co. to get what is coming to them. it just goes to prove that you can lie, cheat, steal and lock up as many records as you can, but in the end, the truth always comes out...i hope georgie has a nice time burning in hell.
Three guesses what's the French insult-du-jour?
--- 'americain'!
Hasn't that been the French insult-du-jour for the past fifty years? :-)
RE self-fulfilling prophecies: Bush and co. may actually be the agents of armagheddon in the middle east. As the quagmire deepens and events spin wildly out-of-control, all bets are off on whatever may happen. But, were talking about the planet's most precious resource in a relatively small geographical area. If the big boys with nuclear weapons, Russia, China, get pulled in, we could all be radioactive toast. Even the top 1% of America would be scrambling for survival then.
When did Ann Coulter ever know anything... ?
"Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately," he said. Perle in the Yahoo article.
This is new blame it on State Department line. Saw Kristol use it on Fox. State and Powell are to blame not Defense and Rummy.
I think I see where they are going with this, and it isn't so much Colin Powell they are manuevering to blame, as it is (naturally) Bill Clinton.
The Pentagon was in total control of relations with the exiles throughout the runup to war -- just as it was in total charge of postwar planning. So they'd just be blaming themselves if they focused on that time period.
I suspect the emerging line will be that the U.S. should have started working more effectively with Chalabi and the INC years ago to prepare them to take over. Damn that Clinton!
Of course, this ignores the fact that the exiles have demonstrated over and over again that they couldn't manage cooking up some scrambled eggs, much less running a country like Iraq.
But, hey, this is probably just the beginning. There are endless possibilities to shift blame further into the past. A few months from now,I can see Scott McClellan standing up at a press conference and saying that everything would be great if that bastard Clinton hadn't ordered the invasion of Iraq ...
Boy is Bush going to be pissed when he gets back from vacation next week and finds out what's been going on.
Billmon you have it right...they will cook up whatever excuse they need to blame someone else because George Is Never Wrong. Todays idea is to say US Intel was "duped" by Iraqi double agents into believing the WMD story. Sure, Saddam tricked us into blowing up his country, kicking him out and killing his family. That sounds plausible.......and Clinton helped him do it.
--- 'americain'!
Hasn't that been the French insult-du-jour for the past fifty years? :-)
Oooohh what a nice cliche. Interestingly, I still note much much more french bashing in the US media than I do see america bashing in the french media. We don't have a Rupert Murdoch in France, which helps.
May, 2004: Taking constant casualties in Iraq and lacking manpower and the UN assistance it needs to defend itself or rebuild, the USA hastily pulls out of Iraq, leaving the council of Shiite and Sunnis clerics and politicians to clean up the mess.
August, 2004: The ruling council is weak and ineffectual; the Shiite clerics in the South are now advocating war to gain freedom from what they see as an American puppet government. There is a civil war in the North as Kurds slaughter Turkmen and Sunnis, and the Turks launch raids to secure their own border. Saddam Hussein reassembles his core forces in Tikrit and calls for Iraqi patriots to follow him. George Bush, trying to pretend the whole Iraq thing was someone else's idea, ignores this.
September and October, 2004: The Shiites are split by factional infighting and assassinations of their leaders. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist forces have reassembled and 400,000 ex-Iraqi Army men have jumped to the call of their old leader. Saddam Hussein easily retakes Baghdad and sends forces to mop up the South. Collaborators are hanged from lamp-posts everywhere. The USA launches cruise missiles at Saddam's palaces, which miss.
November, 2004: The power finally comes back on in Baghdad. George W. Bush, now the laughing stock of the planet, loses the election. Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro exchange high fives.
Pulling out without Saddam would be political suicide.
Bush will not pull out under ANY circumstances without Saddam's head.
Which means he ain't never going to pull out, 'cause said head ain't forthcoming.
For more on the Chalabi/Perle connection there is an interesting post over at Hullaboo, Aug 28th post titled "Ahmad's Ugly Secret" here. This post has several others links too.
This relationship dates back to an event that occurred (mid 90's) during Clinton's term in office. Might support that "blame Clinton" thought. CIA does not like Chalabi, but Pentagon(Perle) certainly does.
One other point I thought was worth mentioning, in Billmon's link to the Kristol/Kagan story, it appears as if they are advocating strongly for more US troops and more money invested into Iraq. I emphasize US troops, not UN/international troops. I don't know how that will happen without burning out the already thinly stretched military personnel,tapping more reservists,instituting a draft or what???. Again this is what Kristol/Kagan are advocating, not Shrubco, at least not at this time.
L'article en question.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/ for a quick translation. Bonus, babelfish thinks Perle = Beads.
Did anyone else read the original article? The arrogant prick isn't exactly begging for forgiveness here. It's the only place in the whole interview where he even entertains the possibility that not everything the U.S. does in Iraq is a golden, shining example to the world. Mostly he blames everyone else, especially the French (though, as others have pointed out here, the quoted extract pretty much paves the way for some spirited finger-pointing too.)
All the way through, you can almost hear the reporter muttering to himself quel imbecile . . .
Perle has been arguing this point at least since July
Perle blamed planning failures on the State Department and other agencies that opposed the Chalabi route.
His idea has always been to get the pro-Israeli, pro-privatization Chalabi installed as president, the Iraqi people be damned.
"The INC has been there for a dozen years with a program that I think the United States would welcome," Perle told The American Prospect. "We could not draft a better program ourselves."
Bush may become more receptive to this as things get worse. Certainly there will be pressure to hand things over to an Iraqi dictator to "guide" the natives towards democracy. So who will it be: Chalabi or Khazraji?
Parallel Universe is correct on all counts.
Perle continuously blames France;
"Je pense que la France a eu tort." = I think that France was wrong.
Says regime change was the main impetus;
"Depuis longtemps, je pensais qu'il fallait renverser Saddam Hussein." = For a long time, I thought that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein.
Re-mentions Syria & Iran's chemical/biological arms;
"Il est incontestable que les Syriens détiennent des armes chimiques. Les Iraniens en ont aussi et travaillent à se doter d'armes nucléaires." = It is undeniable that the Syrians hold chemical weapons. The Iranians also have some and work to obtain nuclear weapons.
Links 9/11;
"Il faut que vous compreniez bien une chose : depuis le 11 septembre" = It is necessary that you understand something well: since September 11
The time will tell meme;
"Laissez du temps au temps." = no need totranslate I hope
On Germany;
"Il y a le sentiment aux États-Unis que la position de Schröder a constitué une aberration uniquement guidée par des motifs électoraux" = There is the feeling in the United States that the position of Schröder constituted an aberration only guided by electoral reasons
Peggy Noonan's into Chirac's mind;
"Je ne pense pas que le président Chirac croyait sincèrement que davantage de temps accordé aux inspecteurs réglerait quoi que ce soit en Irak." = I do not think that president Chirac believed sincerely that more time granted to the inspectors would weild anything in Iraq
Keeps hammering Chirac;
"Le président Chirac et le ministre Villepin ont, de fait, choisi le côté de Saddam Hussein." = President Chirac and de Villepin have, in fact, chosen the side of Saddam Hussein.
...
But isn't Chelabi the source of most of the WMD, flower-tossing, yellowcake walk info that DUPED our poor intelligence people?
I would expect double-agent Chelabi to start working immediately on the next generation of Rummy's nerve gas factories in preparation for the attacks on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
After all, Chelabi knows right where all that hidden WMD stuff is...
We must continue to regard Georgie and his Lying Cretins as either, the poorest, most desparate liars in the history of the US, or, as the most incompetent bunch of ideological clowns to ever disgrace a country...
Georgie did not learn a thing from the war he ducked...
.
moe man:
I though you could practically hear the reporter whistling Israel . . . Israel . . . through his teeth when he asked Mais n'y a-t-il pas dans la région d'autres pays qui possèdent, eux de manière certaine, des armes de destruction massive ?
And you could practically hear the guy slapping his thigh when Perle went off on his predictable rant about Syria and Iran . . . the whole thing is more or less a "can you believe this guy?" joke on Perle, as I read it . . . and Le Figaro is considered conservative in France . . . priceless . . .
President Chirac and de Villepin have, in fact, chosen the side of Saddam Hussein.
Aaarrgh
Give it another month, and the french will be responsible for airlifting Saddam's WMDs to the dark side of the moon using their secret captured alien flying saucer.
Someone please extract the bastard from his undisclosed location in Provence, perform a quick sex change operation on him, wrap him in a Burqa and drop him in Afghanistan. Or you can have him back in the US if you prefer.
What do you think the connection might be between Perle's pronouncement and this?
Parallel Universe and Moe Man are right. This is not a change of position for Perle, or even a concession that things are going badly in Iraq. Even the stuff quoted in the Reuters article was in the context of "Well, we Americans have no colonialist experience [ -- tell it to the Filipinos, Dickie!] so we're not so smooth at invading and administering a country." The overall impression is really, well, we've made some mistakes but basically everything is fine.
Quickly turning power over to Iraqis -- our Iraqis, of course -- has been the neocon line all along.
So BushCo may be getting ready to bug out, but if so I wouldn't read this as a sign of it.
Am I the only one amused by the Perle/Frum book selling via Random House's Adult Trade Group?
In answer to Steve M's question: I wouldn't put it past a maniac like Perle to create international disasters in order to boost his book sales.
I think it's important not to forget that, in the end, everything this slimy bastard and his cronies say is an attempt to obfuscate, confuse or just straight-out lie. I'm not slinging mud - among themselves, lying is their stated m.o. (or rather, that of Leo Strauss, their intellectual mentor and inspiration).
Essentially, they believe that we, the sheeple, need not know what great and lofty things are done on high - moreover, that we must be lied to in order to distract us while they get on with the important grown-up stuff. If you don't believe me, this is a good place to start.
"can you believe this guy?"
The sadder thing is Perle believes his own merde.
I am a bit skeptical about plans for bugging out.
What would happen to all the rebuilding contracts for Bush and Cheney cronies at Haliburton, Bechtel, etc.? We're talking about some serious bucks.
George Tenet surely, not "Tenent"?
Sorry to be picky.
Bill, this is too hilarious. Reuters is reporting that the Saudis sent a top emissary to confer with Bush Sr and Cheney, the real power brokers.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3347585
Perle's comment refutes the "empire-building" conspiracy theories held by so many.
Perle's comment refutes the "empire-building" conspiracy theories held by so many.
It substantiates the "crackpot ideologues allied with corporate predators seeking client states on the cheap*" theory.
*Add well documented incompetence, depraved indifference to human life, contempt for the Enlightenment, visceral hatred of the New Deal and pandering to nasty theocrats to get the full flavor.
Evidently it will substantiate anything you really want to see . . .
Perle's comment refutes the "empire-building" conspiracy theories held by so many.
No, it just shows that they're not very good at it.
Kristol/Kagan
"aesthetically, one wants a third 'K'"
-gore vidal
U.S OUT OF UN - UN OUT OF U.S
11 August 1996
love it!!