This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
The Iraqi Hot Potato
The latest Vanity Fair (03.11.06) includes an interview with Richard Perle, a heavyweight neocon who until 2004 was chair of the U.S Defense Policy Board. Apparently Perle and a swag of other neocons don't think invading Iraq was such a good idea now..
He sounds like the United Nations... So what went wrong, and who is to blame?
This same guy is described by Seymour Hersh in an influential issue of the
New Yorker in March 2003:
Interesting change of tune then, especially days out from US midterm elections - unless you believe this response yesterday from Mr Perle to THE AMERICAN THINKER:
Meanwhile, Seymour Hersh spoke at McGill University the other night. Hersh uncovered the Abu Ghraib prison abuse in 2004, and is about to write a further article on the U.S. army's work in Iraq. He said at McGill, It isnt happening now, but I will tell you there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.
Mr Perle:
"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."
He sounds like the United Nations... So what went wrong, and who is to blame?
The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible. I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.
This same guy is described by Seymour Hersh in an influential issue of the
New Yorker in March 2003:
He is credited with being the intellectual force behind a war that not everyone wants and that many suspect, however unfairly, of being driven by American business interests. There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war. In doing so, he has given ammunition not only to the Saudis but to his other ideological opponents as well.
Interesting change of tune then, especially days out from US midterm elections - unless you believe this response yesterday from Mr Perle to THE AMERICAN THINKER:
In condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, [Vanity Fair] have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.
Meanwhile, Seymour Hersh spoke at McGill University the other night. Hersh uncovered the Abu Ghraib prison abuse in 2004, and is about to write a further article on the U.S. army's work in Iraq. He said at McGill, It isnt happening now, but I will tell you there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.
Howdy, Stranger!