....none other than hardcore neo-con cabal type guy, war planner, and shady character/influence peddler....RICHARD PERLE?!?! U.S. war policy 'grave error' Ex-Rumsfeld aide admits occupation of Iraq a failure Britain, U.S. at odds over interim government's role SANDRO CONTENTA EUROPEAN BUREAU LONDON, England—One of the ideological architects of the Iraq war has criticized the U.S.-led occupation of the country as "a grave error." Richard Perle, until recently a powerful adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, described U.S. policy in post-war Iraq as a failure. "I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error," said Perle, former chair of the influential Defence Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon. With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately. "We didn't have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately," he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30. This public criticism of U.S. policy from one of the leading advocates of the war — and a firm political ally of U.S. President George W. Bush — indicates just how much Bush's political fortunes are being damaged by post-war chaos. With polls indicating 64 per cent of Americans believe Bush has no clear plan for Iraq, the U.S. president is embarking on a series of weekly speeches to pitch his proposal to hand over sovereignty to an appointed interim Iraqi government on June 30. But that plan, contained in a United Nations Security Council resolution drafted by the United States and Britain, has led to confusion about who will have ultimate control over U.S.-led coalition forces. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...417&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724 Wow, mr. "they will welcome us with open arms as liberators" is criticizing the ship from which he scurried off. I will give him credit for at least admitting his mistakes though. Credit to you, dickie.
What an A-hole. Perle has got to rank right up there near the top in the patheon of idiot advisors who should have been working at Walmart and, instead, found himself influencing a weak President to follow a bankrupt foreign policy. Now he has the nerve to criticize the man he helped lead into the sewer otherwise known as the "liberation of Iraq". The man deserves a public flogging.
How many former memebers of Bush's circle have to come out and critize before the blind hardliners regain realize that some standards go beyond party lines? Is pushing their ideology that important to them that they are willing condon widespread inept and corrupt behavior?
New Clancy book criticizes war By Hillel Italie ASSOCIATED PRESS A brand-name author with many admirers in the military criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, citing it as proof that "good men make mistakes." That same writer said he almost "came to blows" with a leading war supporter, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle. The author is Tom Clancy. The hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as "Patriot Games" and "The Hunt for Red October" now finds himself adding to the criticism of the Iraq war, and not only through his own comments. His latest book, "Battle Ready," is a collaboration with another war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. "Battle Ready" looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current conflict. In an interview Monday with the Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side by side in a hotel conference room in midtown Manhattan, mutual admirers who said they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions" during the book's planning. Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation. "It troubles me greatly to say that, because I've met President Bush," Clancy said. "He's a good guy. ... I think he's well-grounded, both morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes." "Battle Ready" was published Monday with a first printing of 438,700. It is the fourth in Clancy's "Commanders" series, in which military leaders reflect on their careers and discuss military strategy. "In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who has worked on books about retired Gen. Chuck Horner, who led U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the Gulf War; and retired Gen. Carl Stiner, whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega. "In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about that. These are good guys, and smart guys." While the 57-year-old Clancy is tall and thin, with bony arms and round, sunken eyes, the 60-year-old Zinni has the short, stocky build of an ex-Marine. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-03. But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against terrorism. On Monday, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the price. "He's a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said. "But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered." In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion. "He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ... he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn't say that he was supporting Bush. Zinni, a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, said he could not support the president's re-election "if the current strategists in the Defense Department are going to be carried over." Zinni makes a point of answering all questions, just as he prides himself on speaking out against Iraq. He called it a lesson learned from Vietnam, when "we were all imprinted with the idea that we can't let this come about again." Clancy, meanwhile, was more close-mouthed, and not only about his views on Iraq. When asked what Jack Ryan, the fictional hero of "Patriot Games" and other Clancy novels, would have thought of the war, the author offered an enigmatic smile. "I don't like to comment on works in progress," he said. http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/entertainment/books/8763140.htm?1c man, clancy is such a wuss, huh? he he
I suspect that Perle is upset because his favorite, Chalabi, is falling out of favor. Gone are Perle's dreams of a President Chalabi approving of Israel and their appropriation of much of the West Bank.
Hey I feel vindicated that at least Geyer feels much the same way. ****** CHALABI'S REMOVAL ANSWERS SOME QUESTIONS, ASKS OTHERS BERLIN, Germany -- Among the extraordinary events in Baghdad and Washington this week, the tenuous links between Ahmad Chalabi and his avid neoconservative American supporters were finally snapped. Iraqi police and U.S. troops raided his offices in the Iraqi capital, accusing 15 of his people of kidnapping, torture and stealing cars, and the great conspiracy that originally led to the war was over. Even while his neocon supporters at home howled with rage ("Appalling!" shouted Richard Perle), it was clear that any hope of the opportunistic Chalabi ruling Iraq on behalf of the neocons' grandiose image of "reconfiguring" the Middle East was finished. Some historical delusions die quietly, even with dignity; this one is dying with all the vulgarity, vanity and stupidity with which it was realized over the last 15 years. In the end, Chalabi had distanced himself from the United States, which was still inexplicably paying him and his movement $340,000 a month (now cut off). He was making trips back and forth to Iran, reportedly feeding American intelligence to the Iranian mullah regime (in earlier years, it is responsibly said, he worked for the Iranian shah's Savak intelligence, which was always closely tied with the Israeli Mossad). In short, this week, all the secret agendas and rampant suspicions were further revealed. The idea of the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Douglas Feith, etc.), who were loosed on the world once George W., Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld grasped office, was to put smooth-talking Iraqi exile and convicted swindler Chalabi into the presidency of the "new Iraq." He would establish an American beachhead in the middle of the most violent and convulsed area of the world, open relations and an oil pipeline with Israel, and force an end to Palestinian demands on Israel. Instead, Iraq's current maelstrom was built upon those misperceptions, which are either incredibly naive or criminally cynical -- or perhaps both. The situation is far from solved; in fact, this severing of Chalabi and his crowd leads ... where? In Washington, true conservatives who were caught up in the war mania in a modern example of Greek hubris are wringing their hands. How, many of them ask, now that it's too late, could they have believed the federal government could wage such a complicated war if it couldn't be trusted with programs inside America? But the neocons, who broke with the Democrats in the 1980s because they dreamed of a triumphant, all-powerful America, are in fact still in their key positions in Washington. Douglas Feith, deputy to the defense secretary, a former fanatic Ariel Sharon activist and the man most responsible for building up Chalabi, still sits in the Pentagon. Nobody has resigned, nobody has left; it is as if everything were going right on schedule instead of falling apart. Inside Iraq, the uniformed American military, who always despised this war but whose members are too bureaucratized to speak out against policy, are waging their own war against the delusionary concept of one big, unified Iraqi democracy. The marker for this changeover was when, two weeks ago, the U.S. military, rather than "take" Fallujah and suffer the losses (on behalf of Washington's incredibly inept policies), began to negotiate cease-fires with our various "enemies" in Iraq and allow their men to control the situation. So now what? With the public disgrace of Chalabi, the neocons' white-haired boy and chosen vehicle for their many sinuous agendas, their failure becomes utterly clear. Yet it is doubtful that anything will change. President Bush, without ideas of his own about the shape and configuration of the world, still remains completely dependent upon these advisers for their support and flattery. The U.S. military in Iraq has ridded itself of the Chalabi millstone, but, without any cultural realizations of its own, is attacking not one but two holy Shiite mosques in Najaf. Such acts have helped the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rise from being an outcast to the second most influential figure in Iraq, next to the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The answer to everything in Washington is, "Yes, but we are turning over sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30." To which one can only come back with another question: To whose sovereignty? Which person or group in Iraq could possibly be said to have the roots and legitimacy that would mean real sovereignty? Chalabi may be discredited in official American eyes (although not in the eyes of the neocons), but the dangerous whirlwind that he and his American fans leave behind still buffets the rest of us. link
there is no conflict on Perle's stand. he advocated the war just didn't agree with the post-war strategy. either way, it says that the administration didn't have a good plan before went into the war and that's incompetent to say the least.
I, too, give credit and kudos to Perle for admitting his mistakes. I mean, he is still a Dick, but at least he is an honest one.
Richard Perle is a dangerous, dangerous man. He's the one who pumped GWB full of neocon ideas (knowing Bush would be susceptible to that line of thinking; keep in mind, I give GWB no quarter on his own decisions). Perle is on record as basically saying military service personnel are expendable, that Muslims are dangerous heathen that must be stopped. He gave seminars/lectures to private groups on how to profit from the war in Iraq, before it started. Etc, etc, etc.
He doesn't agree with the post-war strategy...that was planned by him! He said that they would welcome us as liberators and said that we wouldn't need more than 40,000 troops --- we have 3x that many and that hasn't been nearly enough!
